Work Visas For H-1b Spouses Upheld - No Work Specialty Needed
Lawsuit Decrying Work Permits for H-4 Visa Holders Dismissed by DC Court
- SUNITA SOHRABJI, India-West Staff Reporter
- Oct 3, 2016
A Washington, DC district court judge Sept. 27 ruled against Save Jobs USA, saying that the organization’s lawsuit, which attempts to curtail the Department of Homeland Security from giving work authorization to H-4 visa holders, was without merit.
In its lawsuit filed last year, Save Jobs USA claimed American workers would be forced to compete with 180,000 more applicants who are eligible to work under a new rule which came into effect in the Spring of 2015. Further, noted the organization, H-1B visas are allotted to those with specialized skills, whereas H-4 visa holders with work authorization can apply for any job.
But U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan found in her ruling that giving work authorization to certain H-4 visa holders did not unfairly impact the American work force.
Save Jobs USA announced Sept. 28 that it intended to appeal the ruling.
H-4 visas are allotted to the spouses of H-1B – foreign skilled labor – visa holders.
Approximately 80 percent of H-4 visa holders are from South Asian countries, primarily India. Many have skill levels equivalent to their spouses, but until last May, H-4 visa holders were not allowed to work in the U.S.
But USCIS issued a memo last May, which allowed certain H-4 visa holders – whose spouses had applied for green cards for permanent status in the U.S. – to apply for work authorization. More than 180,000 people – largely women – were eligible to apply.
Save Jobs USA was founded by a group of former information technology workers who had worked for Southern California Edison but were laid off in February 2015 and allegedly replaced by H-1B visa holders. The group claimed at the time that Edison was bringing in “cheap labor” from abroad.
Edison denied that it was bringing in H-1B workers to replace laid-off employees, but did say it was outsourcing some IT work to Infosys in Bangalore and Tata Consultancy Services in Mumbai.
In its lawsuit, which was filed in May 2015, just as the work authorization for certain H-4 visa holders program was getting underway, Save Jobs USA gave the examples of three former Edison employees – Brian Buchanan, Julie Gutierrez, and Steven Bradley – who were laid off from Edison and allegedly replaced by foreign workers. Buchanan had worked at Edison for 17 years and had to train the H-1B worker who replaced him, according to the lawsuit.
Gutierrez had worked at Edison for 20 years and also had to train the foreign worker who was replaced her. Bradley had worked for Edison for 16 years when he was laid off and replaced by an IT worker supplied by Tata. All three IT professionals are still unemployed, 18 months after they were laid off from Edison.
“Corporate America is already seizing upon the opportunity created by DHS for more cheap labor,” stated the plaintiffs in their lawsuit, noting postings on several job placement Web sites that asked specifically for H-4 visa holders with work authorization.
The lawsuit cited the Web sites desiH4ead.com and DICE.com as posting jobs targeted at H-4 visa holders. All of the open positions on both sites were in the information technology sector.
“H-4 aliens are already directly competing with Save Jobs USA members,” stated the lawsuit.
The suit further noted that DHS was ignoring provisions in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which protects American workers. “Congress has adopted the longstanding policy of not allowing H-4 aliens to work in the United States. Through the H-4 Rule, DHS has reversed this longstanding congressional policy,” stated the plaintiffs.
But Judge Chutkan dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns, pointing out that the only eligible H-4 visa holders were those whose spouses had applied for legal permanent residency, a lengthy process.
“The rule aims to alleviate the financial and emotional burden placed on H-1B visa holders and their families during this lengthy period in which only one spouse may be employed,” said Chutkan, noting that the rule underwent a notice-and-comment procedure and extensive review before it was implemented.
A plaintiff must prove “a real and immediate threat” of injury, said Chutkan, adding that she was unpersuaded that any injury had occurred. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs had “failed to demonstrate more than a possibility that DHS’s H-4 Rule might introduce new competitors into the market for tech jobs.”
“DHS’s interpretation of its authority under the INA is not unreasonable, and the H-4 Rule is a valid exercise of this rulemaking authority,” stated Chutkan in her ruling.
http://www.indiawest.com/news/global...994e12bd8.html
