Mississippi Governor Loses Lawsuit Against DACA

A challenge by the Republican Governor of the State of Mississippi and some agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the DACA program was dismissed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision filed today.  The Fifth Circuit ruled that the lawsuit could not prove injury to either Mississippi or ICE by implementation of the DACA program, and that it had to be dismissed because federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases that aren't controversies, which requires something at stake in the case.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is the same court as the one which is about to hear arguments on the President's DAPA program, which was temporarily blocked by a federal district court judge in Texas.  The panel of judges on the DAPA case is not likely to be the same.  It is unclear to what extend the decision today will impact the decision on the DAPA case, but the issues are very similar.  A brief report on the case has just appeared on The Hill Blog.

H-4 EAD Rule - Apply May 26

Following President Obama's November 20 announcement on executive improvements to the immigration system, a regulation has been issued to allow work permit applications for H-4 spouses who are married to H-1B workers who have taken steps to become permanent residents.

When does the rule take effect?  May 26, 2015 is the earliest that an application can be submitted.  Applications filed before that date will not be accepted.

Who can apply?  Not all H-4 spouses can apply, and this rule does not apply to H-4 sons and daughters.  It only applies to H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who: 

• Are the principal beneficiaries of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; OR 
• Have been granted H-1B status under sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (AC21). The Act permits H-1B nonimmigrants seeking lawful permanent residence to work and remain in the United States beyond the six-year limit on their H-1B status.

How do you apply?  Form I-765 with fee must be filed on or after May 26, 2015, along with proof of eligibility.  If the H-1B spouse has an approved I-140, then a copy of the I-797 approval notice should be sufficient, together with a marriage certificate and documentation of the H-1B employee's status.  If the H-1B spouse does not yet have an I-140 approved, but has received an extension beyond the six-year limit on H-1B status because of having a PERM Labor Certification application filed at least a year previously, then more extensive documentation is likely to be required, such as a copy of the H-1B filing requesting the AC21 extension.  The Form I-765 is being modified to ask for specific information relating H-4 work authorization and attention should be paid to the most recent version of the I-765 Form on the USCIS website.

What kind of work authorization is issued?  Upon approval of an I-765, an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), also called an Employment Authorization Card (Form I-766) is sent in the mail to the address listed on the application.  This is proof of work authorization for I-9 purposes.  The EAD can be used to apply for a Social Security Number.  A copy of the EAD card is shown below.

Can you file concurrently with a change of status?  Yes, the final rule makes it clear that someone who is not already in H-4 status, or who is applying to extend H-4 status, can file an I-539 application to change or extend status together with the I-765 application.  That way, the EAD application may be able to be approved faster than if a change of status or extension of status was first filed and adjudicated, and then an I-765 filed later.  

How early can I file to renew?  Usually an I-765 can be filed up to 120 days before expiration, but in cases where an I-539 extension of status is filed together (concurrently) with the I-765, USCIS will allow the application to be filed up to 180 days before the expiration of the EAD, to match the rules for extension of stay.  No applications, however, will be accepted before May 26, 2015.

How long does it take?  Typically, I-765 applications for work authorization take between 60-90 days.  Regulations require USCIS to act within 90 days on these types of applications, but that does not always happen.  The final rule notes, however, that when filing for a change of status to H-4 from some other status concurrently with the I-765, the 90 day period will not begin until the H-4 application is adjudicated.  This is probably to protect USCIS from a rush of applications that it cannot process in time.  In usual practice, an I-765 filed concurrently with an I-539 (such as in the case of an L-2 or E-2 spouse) is typically approved shortly after the change of status or extension of status is granted.  

How long will it be valid for?  The final regulation notes that the EAD card will be issued for the validity of the person's H-4 status.  So if the H-4 applicant only has 6 months left on H-4 status at the time the application is adjudicated, the EAD will only be valid for that 6 months.  If a new three year H-4 period is being applied for, or if the person already has three years in H-4 status left, then the EAD will be issued valid through the end of the person's H-4 status as presently granted.  Thus, it pays to be attentive to how much time is left on a person's H-4 status before applying for an EAD under this provision.

Sample EAD Card, Form I-766, which is the document issued when applying on I-765.

Turn Self In for Deportation Alternative to DAPA?

Original February 23, 2015 post updated with May 26, 2015 Fifth Circuit ruling:  A Texas judge ordered a temporary hold on #immigrationaction Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).  The Feds have appealed, but they just lost in the Fifth Circuit.  Now that all but the nation's highest court has halted the DAPA program, the question remains: Is DAPA the only way to enact smart enforcement?  Arguably, the White House has another potential option to defer deportation and grant work permission for low priority undocumented immigrants - a Turn Self In for Deportation program.

How would that work?  The answer lies in the laws that Congress passed in 1996.  If a person in the United States without authorization can show 1) 10 years of continuous physical presence in the U.S. (with allowances for breaks of 90 days or less if totaling 180 days or less), 2) good moral character, 3) a lack of conviction for certain crimes, and 4) establishes that their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the person's spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, then that person can apply for a green card from an immigration judge, and have their deportation cancelled.  The law is 8 U.S.C. 1229(b) and it is called "Cancellation of Removal."  Yep, Congress said that if you have been here a long time and deportation would work a hardship on your kids, then you should be able to stay here as a lawful permanent resident.  That's the law.

It is probably no coincidence, therefore, that the DAPA program was established for otherwise law abiding individuals who have been here a number of years and are parents of American citizens.  If the government were to put all the estimated 4 million individuals who might qualify for DAPA into removal proceedings, a large portion of them would likely qualify for Cancellation of Removal, and would be entitled to a trial where they could prove the elements of the Cancellation of Removal claim.  This would completely cripple the removal system and prevent the removal of more dangerous individuals.  According to a Wall Street Journal Article, removal hearings are now being set 5 years into the future due to an already long backlog of cases waiting to be heard.  With 230 immigration judges around the country already handling 375,000 cases per year, the system is at the absolute limit. Add 4 million more to the list of pending cases, including mostly those with Cancellation of Removal claims (requiring more court time to handle than many other cases), and hearing dates could be set not 5 years away, but 50 or 100 years in the future.  Add to that the annual limit on 4,000 grants of Cancellation of Removal, and meritorious cases would be pending for 1,000 years.

So how would a Turn Self In for Deportation program work in place of DAPA?  The Obama Administration could allow the portion of DAPA eligible individuals who had the required 10 years in the country to be issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, allow them to file a Cancellation of Removal application, then Administratively Close their case so it gets out of the streamline of pending cases.  In the old days, the predecessor to the NTA, the Order to Show Cause (OSC) could be requested by walking an out-of-status client into investigations and having them written up.  This was done to seek relief before an immigration judge.  At some point the agency decided to limit the issuance of charging documents to cases they thought they could win.  But DHS could certainly allow the old process to operate again, and could certainly direct the Office of Chief Counsel to join in motions to Administratively Close all cases in which the person was eligible for Cancellation of Removal and who also requested such administrative closure.  This process would enable the individual to apply for a work permit, just the same result as if they had applied for DAPA.  By allowing the cases to be Administratively Closed, the system would not be crippled, and removal proceedings involving individuals with serious criminal convictions could proceed.  

So why don't more people just Turn Self In for Deportation?  That is because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has no process to allow for this.  That's right - unless you are a priority for removal, ICE will not usually place a person in removal proceedings by issuing an NTA unless that person is a priority for removal, which at this time involves only people apprehended at the border or those arrested for crimes, and not all those otherwise law abiding individuals who may have Cancellation of Removal.  Some individuals have filed asylum applications in order to be placed in removal proceedings, because denial of asylum leads automatically to an NTA being issued and the individual being placed in removal.  The NTA filing, in turn, allows them to apply for Cancellation of Removal and a work permit, but the process is not without risk outside of an organized system as reported by the New York Daily News.  So, because of the risk of deportation, and the fact that no Turn Self In for Deportation program exists, few of the otherwise law abiding 4 million are in removal proceedings, and cannot therefore apply for Cancellation of Removal.  These are the truly "undocumented" because they are eligible for legalization but cannot apply for it unless they are in removal proceedings, and they aren't likely to get there because they are not committing crimes.

A Turn Self In (TSI) for Deportation program would also be even more shielded from judicial review than the DAPA program, because Congress has enacted laws (namely 8 U.S.C. 1252(g)) to completely insulate the decision to commence removal proceedings against someone from judicial review.  When this post was originally drafted in February, a few scholars commented that the TSI program would be subject to the same problems as the DAPA program in terms of jurisdiction to review in the courts.  Not so, in my opinion.  As the Fifth Circuit held today, "DAPA amounts to the Secretary's decision - at least temporarily - not to enforce the immigration laws as to a class of what he deems to be low priority aliens.  If that were all DAPA involved, we would have a different case."  Slip Op., p. 23-24.  The Court also held, "Unlike the claim in AAADC, the states' procedural claim does not involve a challenge to the Secretary's decision to 'decline to institute proceedings, terminate proceedings, or decline to execute a final order of deportation,' nor does deferred action pursuant to DAPA mean merely that 'no action will thereafter be taken to proceed against an apparently deportable alien.'"  Slip Op., p. 25-26.  The statute, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), states that "...no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General [now DHS Secretary] to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act."  Because issuing an NTA to someone is an act to commence proceedings, it is immune from judicial review, unlike DAPA.  The decision to join in a motion to administratively close a case is arguably not within the jurisdictional protections of 1252(g), but if the agency were to have issued and filed several million NTAs in immigration court, it would be hard to imagine a court which would not allow the officials in charge of managing their dockets the discretion to join in admin closure motions to enable the orderly prioritization of the removal process.  Also, the issuance of work permits is a separate process from the issuance of the NTA and the person's own application before the court for cancellation.  So DHS isn't really responsible for that, it is just part of how the system already works.  How could a court find any reason to stop a process that Congress itself enacted?

Now that the DAPA program has not been placed back online in quick fashion through the courts,  the Obama Administration could consider allowing people to turn themselves in and issuing NTAs to several million of the DAPA eligible group who have been here at least 10 years.  As stated above, the commencement of removal proceedings is entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to interfere with.  Upon filing all those millions of NTAs with the Immigration Court, the Administration could then decide to implement an orderly policy to Administratively Close them (since keeping them in the system would crash it) and allow the system that Congress established to issue the group work permits.  

A far better solution, however, would be for lawmakers to recognize that deporting parents of American citizens who have lived here for many years is not a practical strategy, setting aside for a moment even the humanitarian concerns, and work together in bipartisan fashion to come up with a logical and workable immigration system that takes this group out of the cross hairs of the deportation system.  Until that time comes, however, the Administration must come up with strategies to enforce the immigration laws in a smart way, including separating out those who should not be taking up our limited removal system resources by allowing them to provide proof of their low priority status.  In order to encourage people to come out of the shadows and become pre-identified as low priority for removal, the Administration must give some benefit - work authorization - for such a program to work.  

Whether the Administration wins the battle to implement DAPA at the Supreme Court, or must turn to something such as a Turn Self In for Deportation program, the parents of Americans with lengthy U.S. residence should be allowed the decision to document themselves as low priority by requesting an NTA, and after filing a cancellation application, be issued work permits.  

DAPA and Expanded DACA Blocked

UPDATE! The Supreme Court upheld the blocking of DAPA - read about the TSI ALTERNATIVE TO DAPA HERE.

On President's Day, February 16, 2015, federal judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a temporary Order in favor of the State of Texas, temporarily blocking the DAPA program and also blocking the expansion of DACA.  

What this means: For now, the judge's order blocks USCIS from "implementing any and all aspects or phases" of both the DAPA program, set to go into place by May 18, 2015, and also the expansion of the DACA program, which was set to go into effect February 18, 2015, and which would eliminate the age cap, move the residence date up to January 1, 2010, and extend work authorization from two up to three years.  That means, for now, the USCIS is prevented from putting any DAPA program in place, and also prevented from changing anything about the DACA program as it currently exists.  It does not affect the DACA program that has already been in place since 2012, so anyone who qualifies for the DACA program as currently in place is not affected by this court order.

Why this happened:  The Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit against President Obama, seeking to stop DAPA and the expansion of DACA, claiming among other things that it would cost the State of Texas money to issue driver's licenses to DAPA and DACA recipients because the State charges less than the actual cost of the driver's licenses.  The Texas Governor was joined in the lawsuit by Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Mississippi, Maine, and North Carolina.  The lawsuit was assigned to Andrew S. Hanen, a judge in the Southern District of Texas, where the lawsuit was filed.  Judge Hanen was appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush.  

What will happen next: The order is preliminary and temporary, until the judge decides the case on the merits - in other words, until the judge has more time to hear all the arguments from each party and makes a final ruling.  The Obama administration has announced that it will appeal the temporary decision.  Many legal scholars hold the opinion that Judge Hanen's order will not be upheld (supported) by higher courts.  For now, however, the DACA program cannot expand - the age cap stays in place, the two year cards instead of three years stay in place, and the June 15, 2007 residence date stays in place instead of January 1, 2010.  Also, for now, the DAPA program is on hold.  The DACA program that was put in place in June 2012, however, is still in place and is not affected.  Individuals who are eligible for DACA and renewals of DACA under the 2012 program can continue to apply and receive benefits.  No benefits have been taken away.

Who supported the President's DAPA and DACA programs: The States of Washington, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs in support of President Obama's programs.  The Mayors of New York City and Los Angeles, along with 31 other mayors also supported with a brief.

What could President Obama do: The President has already decided to appeal Judge Hanen's order.  The higher court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court, could decide the case differently.  

The President could also decide to use other methods to achieve the same purpose.  For example, the President could allow people who have been in the country for at least 10 years, and are the parent of an American citizen, to "turn themselves in" to be placed in deportation proceedings (now called removal proceedings), which would allow them to apply for "Cancellation of Removal" and get work permits while they await their hearing in front of an immigration judge.  Cancellation of removal is a form of relief an immigration judge can grant, if the person has been here 10 years, does not have certain criminal convictions and has been a person of good moral character, and establishes that deportation would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the person's spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.  If the judge finds those factors, the judge can adjust the status of the person to lawful permanent resident - a green card.  There are only 4,000 slots available each year, and if a judge decides to grant relief but there are no numbers, the case is just held until numbers are available.  If several million people were suddenly placed in removal proceedings as a result of a turn self in program, it would take many years, perhaps decades, for cases to be heard.  In the mean time, applicants for Cancellation of Removal would be able to apply for work permits.  Of course, taking any action such as turning oneself in for removal proceedings carries risk of deportation or prosecution, and should be undertaken only after receiving the advice of competent immigration counsel.  But this one example does show how there are other ways in which the President can accomplish the goals of DAPA without using deferred action.

Accion Diferida para Padres de familia de Ciudadanos y Residentes permamentes

El Presidente tomó medidas para dar alivio temporal a las familias y a las empresas. Aquí están algunas partes importantes de su acción: 
• Accion Diferida para Padres de familia (DAP) de Ciudadanos Americanos y Residentes Legales Permanentes que han estado en los EE.UU. desde el 1ro de enero del 2010. Esto significa permisos de trabajo y la protección para no ser deportado.
• Expansión de la Accion Diferida para Llegadas en la Infancia (DACA) quitando el límite de edad y moviendo la fecha en la que el solicitante le necesario estar en el país a partir del 15 de junio de 2007, hoy sera apartir del 1ro de Enero del 2010. La DAP y DACA también se incrementara a un período de tres años.

Deferred Action for Parents VIDEO

Watch a short video!  Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, and some improvements to the DACA program too, such as eliminating the age cap!  It will take up to 180 days to implement DAPA, and 90 days to update DACA requirements, so don't apply yet! Learn more from Brent Renison's video below:

Short video on Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program and enhancements to DACA program

EB5 Alive and Well in Portland Oregon

Newly opened EB5 Project, the Residence Inn by Marriott in the Pearl District is a success!  Grand Opening June 18, 2014, with a full house and Lion Dancers to celebrate.  Contact our firm to learn about EB5 ventures currently underway in Portland!

View fullsize

ENTRYLAW Top Ranked In Chambers

Our firm Parrilli Renison LLC, on the web at www.entrylaw.com has once again been top ranked in Chambers and Partners, the leading guide to the world's best lawyers.  Both our partners Tifani Parrilli and Brent Renison have been ranked as Leading Individuals in the field of immigration law.  The Chambers guide editorial outlines in detail our ranking.

H-1B Rejected?

Tens of thousands of employees sponsored by employers for H-1B work visas are awaiting news of whether they won or lost the lottery for the limited number of slots this year.  So far, only receipt notices and approvals have been issued for the winners, but no notices have yet been received by the approximately 87,500 who lost.  Employers and employees are left to wonder, unable to plan what to do next.

On April 10, 2014, USCIS announced that it had received a whopping 172,500 H-1B petitions for only 85,000 slots nationwide for the year.  The H-1B is the main work visa for our country in the professional worker category.  The exhaustion of the quota numbers in one week means that employers and employees will have to wait until April 2015 to file for one of the slots available for start dates in October 2015.  The losers will either need to leave the country, or find another option to stay and work.

Citizens of some countries are eligible for special kinds of visas (Australians have the E-3, Canadians and Mexicans have the TN, Chileans and Singaporeans have the H-1B1), and some employers are exempt from the cap entirely, such as institutions of higher education and non-profit entities affiliated with them, as well as non-profit research organizations.  Those who have previously been counted toward the H-1B cap, such as employees who hold H-1B status already and those who were granted in the past, are generally not subject to the cap.  But for those who have never been counted toward the cap and who have lost the lottery this year, the options may be limited.

F-1 students in Optional Practical Training (OPT) may work pursuant to that authority for 12 months following graduation, and if their degree is listed on the STEM List, they may be able to obtain another 17 months beyond that if the employer is an E-Verify Employer.  

The lack of notice to the losers of the lottery is concerning, as notice to employers was provided weeks earlier last year when the cap was reached also in one week.  The number of rejections is double that of last year, however, so the agency may be overwhelmed.  Hopefully, news will come soon, and employers and employees will be able to start planning.  Perhaps Congress will act to increase the numbers, as proposed in the Senate bill, S.744 which passed in bi-partisan fashion, but the House of Representatives must act.  

More and more American employers may find that the visa climate in the U.S. makes business too difficult, and move operations overseas where artificial visa quotas do not interfere with the free movement of top global talent.  As the Wall Street Journal has reported, Microsoft opened a Canadian operation to deal with the problem, and Apple has not brought engineering talent to work in the U.S. due to the visa restrictions.  After the H-1B rejections start flowing into the HR departments of companies around the U.S., perhaps more thought will be given to such actions by other companies, that is, unless Congress acts soon.

Work Permits! Spouses?

Work permits for H-4 spouses could soon become a reality in certain cases, but this is not a new proposal, and it does not affect that many people.  It will also take a while for this to go into effect.  On May 6, USCIS announced that it was intending to propose a rule which would allow dependent spouses of H-1B workers (H-4 category) to work, but only if their H-1B spouse is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition (the I-140 petition) or has obtained an extension of H-1B status beyond the six years as allowed under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (2000) (AC21) legislation.  This is an fairly limited group of people, because in order to obtain an I-140 approval, most employees must first proceed through the Department of Labor process called PERM and obtain a labor certification before even starting the I-140 petition.  This is a lengthy process.  Another option is the AC21 extension, but that only applies in two situations 1) where an I-140 is approved and priority dates are backlogged (enabling a 3 year extension of H-1B status beyond the sixth year); or 2) where the PERM labor certification was filed at least one year prior to the extension request.  So, in both these situations, there has been a lengthy process toward permanent resident status.  It does not impact very many people who are in visa categories that are generally current, since if an employee has an approved I-140 petition and current priority date, an adjustment of status application can often be filed, and as part of that process a spouse can obtain work authorization based on the pending application.  

This proposal is not new.  It was proposed back in January 2012 by this administration, including a notice of proposed rulemaking, but no action was taken on it at that time.  With this renewed proposal, there will also be some time before it goes into effect.  First, the announcement states that the proposal will be published with a public comment period.  Most of the time, this is a 30 to 60 day comment process, and then followed by a collection of all the comments by the government and an analysis of the responses.  This can take months or even years.  Assuming that this is a priority for the administration, it will still take a few months to put into a final regulation.  Once final regulations are issued, it will still take 60-90 days for most H-4 spouses who file for work authorization under this provision to actually receive work authorization in the form of an Employment Authorization Document (EAD card).  While it is difficult to say, it is a good guess that most H-4 spouses might see a work permit (after applying for it of course) by the end of the year if all goes well.  Be advised that there is no rule yet, and no application procedure established, so that cases filed now would likely be rejected.  

Despite the fact that this may take a while to implement, and may affect relatively few people, it is still a positive measure undertaken by the Obama administration, and will help a number of families.  While the administration could have gone much farther and proposed work authorization for all dependent spouses, this is a fairly good first step.

View fullsize

Unannounced L-1 Site Visits

USCIS recently announced that its Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Division will expand its site inspection program to include L-1 employers.  For the past few years the FDNS has conducted worksite inspections for H-1B employers and is now expanding its inspection program to include L-1 employers.  This expansion is a response to a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), “Implementation of L-1 Visa Regulations.”  OIG’s report was conducted to address concerns of fraud and abuse within the L-1 program.  One of the report’s recommendations is that USCIS conduct mandatory site visits before renewing L-1 petitions for new offices. 

USCIS advised that the FDNS would begin conducting L-1 site visits in the first quarter of the 2014 fiscal year (which began October 1, 2013) and in January 2014 reports of L-1 site visits began to surface.  It is unclear whether L-1 site visits are restricted to new offices or will include all L-1 employers.  It has been noted that the site visits will not include blanket L-1 employers.

Here is what we expect to from the site visits:

·         Visits will usually be unannounced;

·         Visits will occur after an L-1 petition has been approved;

·         The FDNS inspectors will want to inspect the physical work site premises;

·         The FDNS inspector will want to meet with L-1 petition signatories or another employer representative as well as the L-1 employee/beneficiary and possibly the employee’s co-workers and managers;

·         The FDNS inspector will want to verify the offered salary and job duties to confirm the L-1 employee is working in a capacity that is executive, managerial - L-1A, or requires specialized knowledge - L-1B;

·         The FDNS inspector may ask for a copy of the L-1 Petition (if you have not received this from your attorney, please ask for a copy); and

·         For L-1 petitions approved for new offices, the FDNS inspectors will want to verify employing entity’s corporate existence which may include reviewing payroll records, tax filings, or other evidence of the employer’s operations.

To prepare for the possibility of a site visit, L-1 employers should notify staff at L-1 worksites of the possibility and put procedures in place so HR managers and administrative staff are prepared to respond to an unannounced site inspection.

If a site inspection occurs, the employer’s representative should ask for the inspecting officer’s name, title and contact information (or just ask for the officer’s business card) and should immediately notify the employer’s attorney so that the attorney may be present during the inspection either in person or by phone.  For managers and staff present during the inspection, they should be advised not to provide responses to questions for which they do not know the answers.  Do not guess at a response, instead offer to investigate the question and provide follow-up information.  

USCIS’ announcement of the L-1 site visit is a reminder that employers should inform their attorneys of any changes to L-1 employment, such as job duties, work location, or placement at a client site, to ensure that any changes are reviewed in case an amendment is required for the L-1 petition.