ILW.COM - the immigration portal Seminars

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

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



Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Listserv Q&A for
"New Issues For Doctors, Nurses, Etc."

For more info, or to signup online, click here.
For more info, or to signup by fax, click here.


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.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: