The Catholic University of America

Summary of Federal Laws

Compliance Partners

Director International Student and Scholar Services
AVP for Human Resources

Related Policies

Employment Practices and Procedures

Non-Resident Alien Payments

International Student Employment

Employment

Miscellaneous Employment Laws

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) (as amended)

8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.

For more information, see the Immigration and Nationality Act (as amended) in the sections of this summary on Students.

The INA as amended sets forth the laws govering the admission and employment of foreign nationals in the US. The links below will lead to individual web pages that discuss specific provisions of the INA by topic.

Verification of Employment Eligibility

  • I-9
  • E-Verify
  • SSN no-match letters

Employment Based Non-Immigrant Classifications

  • E-3
  • H-1B
  • J-1
  • O-1
  • R-1
  • TN

Immigrant Employment Based Classifications

  • Aliens of Extraordinary Ability
  • Outstanding Professor/Researcher
  • Labor Certification (Special Handling for Teaching Positions and Regular)

Inviting and Paying International Scholars and Visiting Faculty

  • Honoraria
  • Visa Waiver Program
  • Tax Issues
  • Employment Status (employment visa or independent contract or volunteer)
 

Final Rule Delaying Effective Date of the International Entrepeneur Rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 31887, July 11, 2017. The rule included criteria for determining which international entrepreneurs could obtain parole into the United States, was issued by the previous administration and was scheduled to go into effect on July 17, 2017. It is now delayed to consider it in the context of the Jan. 25 Executive Order on immigration. See the NY Times article titled In Blow to Tech Industry, Trump Shelves Start Up Immigrant Rule

 

 

 

Resources 

 

Trump v IRAP and Trump v. Hawaii, Nos. 16-1436 and 16-1540 U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2017 

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court  held that the  Executive Order (Travel Ban) as amended may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the U.S. This would include a famly member, a visa to attend school in the U.S, or a work visa. As applied to all other individuals, the Government's application to stay the injunction is granted until a final decision is made by the Supreme Court, with the oral arguments to be heard in the fall of 2017. This means that the Court reinstated a portion of the travel ban for certain citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Advice for travelers from the affected countries is posted here in the FordMurray newsletter of June 26, 2017

 

Hawaii v. Trump, Case No. 17-15589, (C.A. 9th Cir.), June 12, 2017

In this case, unlike the 4th Circuit case decided upon constitutional grounds, the 9th Circuit found the Immigration and Nationality Act had been violated. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the President exceeded the scope of his statutory authority by issuing the Executive Order without first making a sufficient finding that entries into the United States of the prohibited classes would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The Ninth Circuit further found that the Executive Order violated the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that forbid nationality-based discrimination in immigration-related actions and require the President to follow a specific process before setting a cap on refugee admissions.

We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress. In suspending the entry of more than 180 million
nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year, the President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority: The President 
must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Further, the Order runs afoul of other provisions of the INA that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and require the President to follow a specific process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees. On these statutory bases, we affirm in large part the district court’s order.****

See the New York Times article *Trump Loses Travel Ban in Appeals Court.*

Publication 515: Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens Foreign Entities 

USCIS E-Verify Web page

 

 

 
 
updated 7/18/17, mlo