New Issues For Doctors, Nurses, Etc.
Editor's Note: The following are the materials for this seminar.
"New Issues For Doctors, Nurses, Etc."
Session 2 held on July 21, 2005
From Sherry L. Neal
Memorandum regarding H-1b's and Social Security Numbers http://www.ilw.com/seminars/june2005_citation2a.pdf
From William Stock
INS memo of 11/27/2002 on H-1B for nurses: AILA Infonet doc no. 02121746
Regulation regarding H-3 training visas for nurses: 8 CFR 214.2(h)(7)(i)(B).
INS memo on H-1B and lack of a license because of lack of an SSN: AILA doc no. 01112131
From Greg Siskind
From Judith Pendergast
Section 343 of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208
Sections 212(a)(5)(C) and (r) Immigration and Nationality Act.
Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 143, Friday July 25, 2003 (final rules)
Path to CGFNS/ICHP VisaScreenT Certification: Applicant Handbook; 2004-2005 Edition, CGFNS.
English requirement chart can be found at :
Information on number of healthcare worker certificates issued can be found at:
ICHP VisaScreenT: Visa Credentials Assessment Fact Sheet at http://www.cgfns.org
Is it true, as I have been hearing, that staffing companies such as mine that act primarily as brokers to provide nurses to hospital clients that cannot or will not do the work themselves, are having their petitions kicked back because they are not considered the primary employer? If a hospital files directly for the nurse, chances are there will be an approval but not so for a staffing company? In the past, hospitals have scooped up the nurses that were brought over but did not want to get involved at the start of the process so we filed petitions under our own company name. Has there been a change in USCIS policy on this issue?
Answer by William Stock:
I would answer that immigration law has always required the "employer" (the actual source of the immigrant's day-to-day direction and of the immigrant's pay) to be the petitioner, and does not let a "matchmaking" employment agency petition for a position with a different employer. The only thing that may have changed would be the level of awareness of the issue at the USCIS service centers, who now know to look at the issue of whether or not the staffing company is an "outplacement" agency (one which directs the immigrant to work at a site, but pays the immigrant and in turn is paid by the hospital based on the hours worked by the immigrant) or a "matchmaking" agency (one which directs the immigrant to work at a site and is paid a single fee, but the immigrant goes on the hospital's payroll and has no further contact with the agency). In the first scenario, the agency can be the petitioner, because it will be the employer. In the second scenario, it is the hospital who will be the employer, and the agent is only arranging the employment, so the hospital and not the agency must be the petitioner.
Answer by Greg Siskind:
That's right. I knew of a placement firm that got away with filing many cases as the petitioner even though its hospital clients was the real employer. Eventually USCIS caught on and the company ran into a load of problems.
Gregory Siskind et al. are the speakers for the New Issues For Doctors, Nurses, Etc. seminar.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.