ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
Norman Matloff in his letter to the Editor appears to have appointed himself, among many other things enumerated in his impressive resume, to be the ivory tower expert on reforming the immigration law and procedure of the US. His letters appear to have very strong opinions about H-1B and L-1 visas. However, his pontification on the subject of immigration demonstrates his naivety, when in his opinion-driven dissertation on H-1 and L-1 reform he states, "The increase in L-1 numbers in the past few years is likely due to the DOL-designated H-1B dependent employers switching to L-1 to avoid the H-1B dependent restrictions", a conclusion I would challenge as being his sole opinion, and not based on reality because of the L-1 requirements of one year overseas employment by a parent company, affiliate or subsidiary of the petitioner. Dr. Matloff's letter further underestimates the difficulty of obtaining the L-1 visa classification, especially by small companies, by stating, "Immigration lawyers dislike L-1 because its lack of restrictions means the application procedure is extremely simple, so that they cannot make much money in processing it." I will venture a guess Dr. Matloff was never told this by any immigration lawyer and does not know what lawyers charge to prepare an L-1 petition, especially "start-up" L's. I further believe I am safe in assuming Dr. Matloff has never himself prepared an L-1 Petition, especially a "start-up", that he has never received and responded to an RFE by the BCIS, that he has never had an L-1 Petition approved or denied, has never had a client who needed one, and has no understanding of those who do. Yet, Dr. Matloff would have the world believe he is an "expert" on the subject of H and L visas and their reform. I contend that Dr. Matloff might do well to confine his opinions to areas about which he has more practical knowledge, like mathematics and statistics, computer programs, teaching and other such areas of exactitude and calculable formulation, and leave the real world of immigration law and problem solving to those down in the trenches, including his recent nemesis of debate, Justin Randolph. In my opinion, Mr. Randolph's letters exhibit a depth of knowledge and understanding that far exceeds anything I have read by Dr. Matloff, including his academic "paper" on the subject. Concerning the feedback requested, I'll give Mr. Matloff feedback . . . While not totally without merit in some of proposals, the bulk of Dr. Matloff's conclusions appear to be based either on emotion or a political agenda, coupled with an academic analysis of problems he, as a mathematical academician, does not appear to fully understand because (1) he has never been an immigration lawyer and (2) he has never been a multinational employer. His opinions are contrary to the needs of US employers, and are contrary to the opinion of major labor unions which have supported the H-1B program - for Pete's sake, next year the cap on H-1B's will be 65,000 in a country of approximately 300,000,000 and there is no indication that now that the hi-tech rage is over that it will even come close to being exceeded. Jason Randolph has attempted to inform Dr. Matloff in previous letters that H-1 and L-1 visas are issued to other than the computer and hi-tech industry and Dr. Matloff must understand this; something his dissertation fails to recognize. Dr. Matloff must further understand that possessing a doctoral degree, coupled with the power of the pen and pulpit of academia, does not make one an expert in every field of endeavor or thought into which one might decide to wander. Now, I do not say Dr. Matloff is not welcome to his opinions, but he is not welcome to use his position as an academician to expound on subjects beyond his area of expertise when he seeks to denigrate lawyers who are dedicated to the practice of immigration law, or Justin Randolph, with condescending remarks such as those in his dissertation, or in his last letter to the editor, where, continuing a chain of such condescending responses in which he has engaged Mr. Randolph, he states that Mr. Randolph's "assumptions are incorrect". I, for one, agree with Justin Randolph's letter - a man with an obvious abundance of practical experience, understanding and compassion, that is the cornerstone of the professional in immigration law.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA