We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Australia, Italy, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States.
Click here to view.
President-elect Trump’s announced (and rumored) Cabinet member selections confirm that immigration enforcement will be a top priority from day one. With less than two months before inauguration day, US employers should take action now to ensure they are compliant with immigration regulations, are prepared for worksite ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) or DOJ (Department of Justice) raids or enforcement activity and are ready to respond to government investigations or employee complaints regarding the employment of foreign workers.
We recommend the following three steps:
We expect to see a significant rise in worksite inspection and I-9 audits from the incoming administration. All employers are required to verify the work authorization of all employees in the United States by completing and maintaining the Form I-9. Employers should conduct internal I-9 audits every 2-3 years to identify potential liability and make necessary corrections; conducting an internal audit with counsel is a helpful tool to protect the audit under attorney/client privilege. Immediate steps employers can take include:
We are clearly (and thankfully) well past the pandemic, and yet demands for flexible and remote work press on. While the overall global trend of transforming the traditional 9-to-5 work model is consistent, laws governing flexible work arrangements can vary significantly by jurisdiction.
We monitor this space closely (see our previous update here) and advise multinational companies on a multitude of issues bearing on remote, hybrid and flexible arrangements, including health & safety rules, working time regulations, tax and employment benefit issues, cybersecurity and data privacy protections, workforce productivity monitoring and more.
Key recent updates around the globe (organized by region) include:
Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January will have a profound impact on immigration law and enforcement. While the Trump/Vance ticket made immigration a central focus of its campaign, the platform took aim at asylum law and unlawful immigration rather than legal immigration and employer-based immigration. Trump’s first term provides strong clues about potential policy and enforcement changes, though uncertainty remains for employers.
Potential Changes to Employer-Based Immigration
Trump’s first term in office did not result in major legislative changes to immigration law, but enforcement methods and interpretation of existing laws varied drastically from historical norms. Potential changes in a second Trump administration could include:
Immigration and mobility considerations can significantly impact corporate transactions, especially those in cross-border deals. Employers must ensure continued work authorization for impacted employees, manage visa statuses in other countries, and identify and address immigration issues up front. In our latest Global Immigration and Mobility Video chat, our on-the-ground immigration and mobility attorneys from EMEA, Latin
We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Austria, Italy, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and the United States.
Click here to view.
This summer SCOTUS published three major decisions impacting workplace immigration decisions. Two of the decisions may require employers to shift their strategies for managing foreign-national talent, and the third essentially preserves the status quo.
Below we outline the impact of the decisions on US-based employers:
In Department of State v. Munoz (July 21, 2024), SCOTUS ruled that US citizens do not have a fundamental liberty interest in their noncitizen spouses’ ability to come to the US.
In Munoz, the spouse of a US citizen was denied an immigrant visa by a US consulate on ground that the consulate had “reason to believe” the spouse would participate in illicit activity if admitted to the US. The consular denial provided limited explanation for the decision – simply citing the “reason to believe” statute (a legal standard under which foreign nationals can be barred from entering the country if USCIS has a “reason to believe” the individual has been involved in illicit or illegal conduct) – and was extremely slow in providing this basis for its decision. The US citizen petitioning spouse sought judicial review and argued that she had a liberty interest in the matter given her US citizenship and that the impact of the consular decision deprived her of the fundamental right to marriage. But after receiving a favorable decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reversed and held that no such liberty interest exists in this context.
While the facts of Munoz did not involve a US employer, the underlying doctrine at issue – the ability to challenge a consulate’s decision on a visa – has direct implications to US employers who seek employment-based visas for employees. In reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Court upheld and arguably expanded the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability” – i.e. the inability to challenge the decision of a consular officer in US federal court.
Munoz leaves employers and visa applicants with limited, if any, means for judicial redress in the event of an incorrect or unjust consular decision. Other avenues for challenging an unfavorable decision exist – including requesting supervisory review, review from the State Department’s Legal Net, or re-filing the application – but these fall short of and lack the teeth of formal judicial review.Continue Reading Triple Feature: SCOTUS Issues 3 Blockbuster Immigration Decisions This Summer Impacting Employers and Foreign National Employers
We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Brazil, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Click here to view.
We are thrilled to announced that the latest edition of The Global Employer: Focus on Global Immigration & Mobility is now available! This handy, go-to desk reference guide includes:
The regulatory landscape for immigration compliance is constantly evolving. To protect and keep top talent and to avoid tangles with the law, US multinational employers must stay on top of the latest legal decisions and guidance.
In this blog series, our team of Global Immigration and Mobility experts will share significant legal updates and practical strategies for maintaining compliance. In our first post, we highlight the possible implications of the SEC v. Jarkesy case for immigration courts, and highlight the DOJ’s recently-released Fact Sheet addressing I-9 compliance when using electronic platforms.
A case currently pending in the US Supreme Court could have high stakes for administrative law judges in the immigration context–and, depending on the outcome, could theoretically open the door for challenging the ability of the DOJ to investigate employers for immigration-based discrimination.
On November 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court held oral argument in SEC v. Jarkesy. Jarkesy, an investment advisor, had been found guilty by an ALJ of securities law violations. As a result, he was fined, barred from securities industry activities, and his firm was required to repay investors. Jarkesy challenged the SEC’s enforcement action at the 5th Circuit, which agreed with Jarkesy, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Notably, a core question before the Court is whether Congress’ decision to allow ALJs to be removed only for “good cause” violates Article II of the Constitution (requiring the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”)
During oral arguments, conservative justices expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the SEC’s current process, where ALJs handle violations and defendants are not entitled to a jury trial.
The arguments that could potentially weaken the authority of ALJs in the Jarkesy case–i.e., that defendants are unconstitutionally deprived of a jury trial when administrative judges address infractions–could also be extended to ALJs sitting within the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), potentially depriving them of their ability to adjudicate cases. Defendants are already using this argument in ongoing cases in an effort to invalidate the DOJ’s immigration-related proceedings against them.
If the Supreme Court’s decision leads to the removal of ALJs at the SEC, it is likely that the authority of ALJs at other agencies will face subsequent legal challenges, including enforcement actions brought against employers by the DOJ for allegations of: (i) citizenship-based discrimination; (ii) national-origin-based discrimination; (iii) document abuse (relating to I-9s); and (iv) retaliation.Continue Reading Beyond Borders: How US Multinational Employers Can Master Immigration Compliance
