September 25, 2022

Volume XII, Number 268

Advertisement

September 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

June 22 Immigration Proclamation Challenged by Business Organizations and Plaintiffs in New Lawsuit

Presidential Proclamation 10052, issued on June 22, 2020, has now been challenged in several federal district courts. As previously reported, Presidential Proclamation 10052 barred the issuance of visas to anyone in H-1B, H-2B, H-4, L-1, L-2, J-1, and J-2 status. Thus, if a person did not have a valid visa at the time of the Proclamation, he or she would not have been able to obtain a new visa from a U.S. consulate or embassy, effective until Dec, 31, 2020, unless the Proclamation was amended. This Proclamation and its bar on the entries of certain nonimmigrants into the country greatly affected the U.S. business community.

As a result of this Proclamation, the most anticipated significant case for the business community was filed on July 21, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; and, Michael R. Pompeo, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek a nationwide preliminary injunction. They contend that the proclamation is not legal and that it exceeds the statutory and constitutional authority of the president. The Proclamation cites presidential authority in 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) (INA 212(f)) as the basis for the Proclamation. Specifically, the president claims that the entry of certain H, L and J non-immigrants would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. given the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs contend that this authority has no rational relationship to the economic crisis cited as the basis for the order. The plaintiffs argue that the true purpose of the Proclamation was to eliminate foreign workers to open up jobs for U.S. workers and forcibly change hiring practices of U.S. employers. The Plaintiffs argue that shutting down existing hiring patterns for U.S. companies that rely on talent around the globe is not a lawful use of this Executive authority.

The Plaintiffs point out that even the National Interest Exceptions to the Proclamation are not currently being honored. Plaintiffs point out that foreign medical doctors are being turned down for H-1B visas and international researchers studying the effects of COVID-19 are being denied L-1 visas even though they meet the exception criteria.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Proclamation is Arbitrary and Capricious; that is exceeds the Authority of the Executive Branch; and Violates the Administrative Procedure Act. This case is expected to be assigned to a judge quickly and a hearing on the injunction request scheduled in the next two weeks.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. National Law Review, Volume X, Number 204
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Laura Foote Reiff, Greeberg Traurig Law Firm, Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Labor and Employment, Immigration Law Attorney
Shareholder

Laura Foote Reiff Co-Chairs the Business Immigration & Compliance Practice and is the Co-Managing Shareholder of the Northern Virginia Office. She also Co-Chairs the firm’s Labor & Employment Practice’s International Employment, Immigration & Workforce Strategies group. Laura focuses her practice on business immigration laws and regulations affecting U.S. and foreign companies, as well as related employment compliance and legislative issues.

Laura advises corporations on a variety of compliance-related issues, particularly related to...

703-749-1372
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement