In the July 4, 2004 issue of Bender's Immigration Bulletin I published this essay . As we head into the long weekend...and an even longer 2024 election cycle in which immigration will loom large....
In this one-hour webinar, four experts explain what will happen next at the border. Essential viewing! Watch the recording here .
Senate Joint Economic Committee, Dec. 14, 2022 "As the United States continues its recovery from the pandemic recession, immigrant workers are essential to the continued growth of the labor force...
Muzaffar Chishti, Kathleen Bush-Joseph, MPI, May 25, 2023 "U.S. border enforcement finds itself in an uncertain new era now that the pandemic-era Title 42 border expulsions policy has been lifted...
ACLU of Florida, May 22, 2023 "A group of Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida, as well as a real estate brokerage firm in Florida that primarily serves clients...
"For PERM practitioners, what is the practical take away lesson from Symantec? Does the fact that 656.17(f) does not apply to the additional forms of recruitment mean that these additional forms of recruitment can indeed contain job requirements or duties which exceed the job requirements or duties listed on the ETA Form 9089? Can the three additional forms of recruitment contain requirements that are more restrictive than the minimum requirements listed on the ETA Form 9089? In footnote No. 4 to its decision in Symantec BALCA en banc mentioned that the CO, in his argument, relied on East Tennessee State University, 2010-PER-38 (Apr. 18, 2011) (en banc) where the Board concluded that an advertisement placed in fulfillment of an additional recruitment step must not include requirements not listed on the Form 9089, and stated that this conclusion is not binding upon the Symantec en banc Board as the issue was not raised or briefed by the parties, or necessary to the resolution of the appeal, and the Board did not analyze the scope of 656.17(f) in any depth. This could be seen as somewhat confusing to PERM practitioners. How can BALCA hold that 656.17(f) does not apply to the additional recruitment steps but then fail to address the East Tennessee en banc decision stating that the additional recruitment steps must abide by 656.17(e)? Which en banc decision governs?
I think that PERM practitioners ought not to read too much into Symantec’s footnote No. 4. ..." - Cora-Ann V. Pestaina, Aug. 12, 2014.