RECENT (Jan 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
· No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum – for 3rd Party Consulting company.
· No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum – for 3rd Party Consulting company.
· If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) – for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned – all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry – these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an “US Employer”. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word “Employer-Employee relationship”. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo – including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / “Job-Shop” (better version of “Body-shop”, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships – meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn’t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law – meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
“The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company’s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company’s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor’s or so-called Prime-Vendor’s or Consulting Partner’s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary’s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner’s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary’s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].”
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have “Right to Control” over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner’s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary’s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet “Right to Control” and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture – have their entire or partial team – along with managers etc. – working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting – because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll – not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. – meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don’t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events – Memorandum and recent Deportations – kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that – each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
· Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes – there could be trend – employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions – especially, when small consulting company’s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
· Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee’s future/transition etc.
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have “Right to Control” over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner’s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary’s day-to-day work."
If PPL working for a 3rd party consultant donot have Project manager or so, they are already violating the Supreme Court's Definition of Employer-Employee relationship. Dude, this is not nepal where u can violate the law and walk free....
Rules were in effect from the Beginning and this memo has only substantiated that rule..
NOTE: The opinions
here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com.
It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address
if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be
handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it.
- Thanks.
.png)
