Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Your H-1B Petition Was Not Selected in the Lottery
Fairly soon, an estimated 150,000 businesses in the United States will receive some bad news: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will not be considering their H-1B petitions for skilled foreign workers. The petitions will be rejected without any analysis as to their merits. The candidate may be expertly qualified and the job may be a specialty occupation. Yet these businesses with a clear need for temporary help will have to explore other ways to keep their prospective or current employee working for their company, or face the possibility that the foreign worker may be forced to return home.
The H-1B program is capped at 85,000 visas per year. When the economy is thriving, as it has been the last four years, the cap is met within the first five days of the application period. USCIS is required to put any petition filed during those first five days into a “lottery,” then randomly select which petitions will be reviewed. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, USCIS received approximately 238,000 petitions within the first five days. It received 233,000 in FY2016; 172,500 in FY2015; and 124,000 in FY 2014. It is expected that FY2018 will meet or exceed the petitions filed in FY2017.
If you are one of the unlucky employers whose petition was not selected for review, you may have alternatives. This article provides a brief overview of some of the more popular options. It is not meant to be exhaustive in listing the requirements for each visa; instead, general information is provided. Significant further analysis of the relevant treaties, statutes and regulations is necessary before deciding whether any of these programs is appropriate.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?