AILA Seeks Rescission of the January 8, 2010 Neufeld Memorandum
The Neufeld Memorandum of January 8, 2010, has generated a substantial amount of discussion with its newly-proposed standard for “employer-employee” relationship applied to third-party H-1B employee placements, which are very common for consulting companies. Our office has handled many consultations and inquiries relating to the Neufeld Memorandum and what it means for the thousands of H-1B employees currently on H-1B visa and for their employers.
AILA Seeks Rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum
Our office has revised its standard H-1B preparation guidelines for third-party worksite H-1B petitions to comply, to the extent possible, with the new requirements imposed by the Neufeld Memorandum. In the meantime, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), in a January 26, 2010, Memorandum addressed to the Chief Counsel of USCIS, calls for the rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum effective immediately and for the issuance of a new memorandum to redefine the employer-employee relationship differently, considering legal precedent.
The AILA Memo is quite lengthy (24 pages) and goes into a great detail to substantiate its main claims that (1) the Neufeld Memorandum improperly creates substantive new rule outside the proper channel for making such rules and (2) that the employer-employee relationship definition in the Neufeld Memorandum is improper and is against congressional intent.
The Neufeld Memorandum is Improper Rulemaking
As an initial matter, AILA argues that the Neufeld Memorandum is issued improperly because it seeks to change substantive rules without the necessary process. Change in substantive rules must be done by following the required notice and comment procedures. AILA argues that the “guidance” in the Neufeld Memorandum is a substantive rule change which cannot be imposed by a memorandum; instead it should follow the normal rulemaking process. As a result, AILA argues that the Neufeld Memorandum should be set aside as a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
The Neufeld Memorandum Definition of Employer-Employee Relationship is Incorrect
As its main argument for seeking the rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum, AILA argues that the sweeping definition of “employer” is inconsistent with the law, impedes its intent and purpose and is inconsistent with decades of precedent. The AILA Memo then goes into great detail and legal analysis of its claim to conclude that the Neufeld Memorandum, in addition to certain recent AAO’s non-precedent decisions and the accompanying adjudications at the Service Centers that are applying these decisions to current filings seek to overturn over fifty years of consistent precedent and regulatory interpretation to categorically deny eligibility for benefits to an entire class.
Conclusion
The AILA Memorandum is a well researched and substantiated request for the rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum. However, we do not know yet what USCIS’ position would be in response and whether USCIS will take any steps in response to this memorandum. We will continue to provide updates on this topic as it is of great interest of our clients, readers and a large portion of the employment-based immigration community.
Related News and Articles
The Capitol Immigration Law Group has been serving the business community for over 15 years and is one of the most widely respected immigration law firms focused solely on U.S. employment-based immigration. Disclaimer: we make all efforts to provide timely and accurate information; however, the information in this article may become outdated or may not be applicable to a specific set of facts. It is not to be construed as legal advice.