Wednesday, April 13, 2011
FEDERAL JUDGE PROTECTS H-1B EMPLOYEES FROM WRONGFUL ARREST
A recent ruling from a federal judge in Connecticut confirmed that as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) argued in an amicus brief, the government may NOT arrest H-1B employees for whom there are pending and timely filed extension applications. The decision in El Badrawi v. United States, was issued by U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall, relied mainly on the federal regulations that allow H-1B employees to continue working for 240 days pending the adjudication of their extension applications, and that “work authorization is part and parcel of their authorization to be in the country, not a separate matter.” Thus, when the government permits the initiation of removal proceedings during this period would therefore be unfair to employees and employers alike, according to the decision. The plaintiff in this law suit is a Lebanese national, who was employed as a medical researcher when his employer requested an H-1B extension in early 2004, more than a month before his H-1B status expired. Though his employer paid a $1,000 fee for premium processing of the application, the government never adjudicated it and refused to respond to requests for information. Nearly seven months after the request was filed, immigration agents arrested the plaintiff for allegedly “overstaying” his initial period of admission. He was placed in removal proceedings and detained for nearly two months. The amicus brief contained supporting declarations from three companies that rely on H-1B workers, arguing that arresting non-citizens with pending extension applications would threaten to disrupt key sectors of the U.S. economy and undermine the goals of the H-1B program. The decision is wonderful and really uses common sense (something the Federal Government is often lacking) - why would someone who can legally continue working while an extension application is pending could be arrested, detained and deported? The decision really was the right thing to do. What a sad set of circumstances for this plaintiff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment