A California jury has awarded $492,000 to a former medical assistant

A California jury has awarded $492,000 to a former medical assistant who accused Kaiser Permanente of illegally firing her to avoid costly medical treatment for her disabled son, surpassing the healthcare giant’s highest settlement offer of $15,000, according to the woman’s attorney. The jury reached a verdict finding that Kaiser engaged in disability discrimination when it terminated Maria Gonzalez in 2014. Gonzalez worked in a pain management clinic, and Kaiser claims they fired Gonzalez for accessing her son Pedro’s medical records without authorization, while he received treatment in that same clinic. The award consists entirely of past and future economic damages. In addition, Kaiser will be required to pay attorney fees that reach “into the seven figures.”

Unlucky Trump and his Muslim Ban. Trump – 0; Opponents – 2.

Late afternoon on March 15, 2017 federal judge in Hawaii has blocked enforcement of President Trump’s revised ban on refugee resettlement and travel from six predominantly Muslim countries, hours before the executive order was to take effect. The decision has at least temporarily struck down the Trump administration’s attempt to pause all refugee resettlement for 120 days and block citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said his ruling applies nationwide. It appears to set the stage for a battle in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month upheld a ruling blocking Trump’s original travel ban. The case, brought by Hawaii Atty. Gen. Douglas Chin, argued that the latest travel ban would have "profound" and "detrimental" effects on residents, businesses and universities. In its complaint, the state of Hawaii also said the executive order discriminates against Muslims and violates the equal protection and due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers for the state also argued that the order illegally discriminates based upon nationality.
Few hours later a second federal judge issued an injunction on March 16, 2017 blocking enforcement of one of the critical sections of President Trump’s revised travel ban, using Trump’s own comments against him in deciding that the ban was likely to run afoul of the Constitution. The decision from U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in federal court in Maryland marks another win for challengers of the president’s executive order. Chuang’s order did not sweep as broadly as the one in Hawaii, but he similarly declared that even the revised travel ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims. He said those wanting evidence of anti-Muslim intent need look no further than what the president himself has said about it. Chuang’s ruling won’t upend or call into question the decision in Hawaii, instead offering some measure of reinforcement, and a different appeals court through which the government would likely have to pass. “The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.

USCIS Will Temporarily Suspend Premium Processing for All H-1B Petitions

Starting April 3, 2017, USCIS will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B petitions. This suspension may last up to 6 months. While H-1B premium processing is suspended, petitioners will not be able to file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service for a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker which requests the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. We will notify the public before resuming premium processing for H-1B petitions.

Who Is Affected

The temporary suspension applies to all H-1B petitions filed on or after April 3, 2017. Since FY18 cap-subject H-1B petitions cannot be filed before April 3, 2017, this suspension will apply to all petitions filed for the FY18 H-1B regular cap and master’s advanced degree cap exemption (the “master’s cap”). The suspension also applies to petitions that may be cap-exempt.

While premium processing is suspended, we will reject any Form I-907 filed with an H-1B petition. If the petitioner submits one combined check for both the Form I-907 and Form I-129 H-1B fees, we will have to reject both forms.

We will continue to premium process Form I-129 H-1B petitions if the petitioner properly filed an associated Form I-907 before April 3, 2017. Therefore, we will refund the premium processing fee if:

1. The petitioner filed the Form I-907 for an H-1B petition before April 3, 2017, and
2. We did not take adjudicative action on the case within the 15-calendar-day processing period.

This temporary suspension of premium processing does not apply to other eligible nonimmigrant classifications filed on Form I-129.

Requesting Expedited Processing

While premium processing is suspended, petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-1B petition if they meet the criteria on the Expedite Criteria webpage. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to demonstrate that they meet at least one of the expedite criteria, and we encourage petitioners to submit documentary evidence to support their expedite request.

We review all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and requests are granted at the discretion of the office leadership.

Why We Are Temporarily Suspending Premium Processing for H-1B Petitions

This temporary suspension will help us to reduce overall H-1B processing times. By temporarily suspending premium processing, we will be able to:

• Process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years; and
• Prioritize adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240 day mark. 

The European Parliament has voted to end visa-free travel for Americans within the EU.

It comes after the US failed to agree visa-free travel for citizens of five EU countries – Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania – as part of a reciprocity agreement. US citizens can normally travel to all countries in the bloc without a visa.
The vote urges the revocation of the scheme within two months, meaning Americans will have to apply for extra documents for 12 months after the European Commission implements a “delegated act” to bring the change into effect.
The Commission discovered three years ago that the US was not meeting its obligations under the reciprocity agreement but has not yet taken any legal action. The latest vote, prepared by the civil liberties committee and approved by a plenary session of parliament, gives the Commission two months to act before MEPs can consider action in the European Court of Justice. Australia, Brunei, Japan and Canada were also failing in their obligations, but all four have lifted, or are soon to lift, any visa restrictions on travel for EU citizens.
The Commission is legally obliged to act to suspend the visa waiver for Americans, but the European Parliament or the Council of the European Union have the chance to object to the “delegated act” it uses to do so. In December, MEPs pressed for the move in order to “encourage” Washington to play its part, according to a statement by the parliament. But Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos warned of “consequences”, including potential “retaliation” and a drop in visitor numbers precipitating substantial losses for the continent’s tourism industry.
Just days ago the Council said it would liberalise the visa regime for citizens of Georgia travelling into the EU. Georgians can now, subject to final approval of the regulation, stay in any EU country for 90 days in any period of 180 days without needing a visa. Carmelo Abela, Malta’s minister for national security, said: “This agreement will bring the people of Georgia and the EU closer together and will strengthen tourism and business ties. It follows the completion of the necessary reforms by Georgia, addressing document security, border management, migration and asylum.” 
Last month it was reported that the EU was considering the adoption of a US-style electronic travel permit scheme – a move that could create a new administrative hurdle for British tourists after Brexit.
Immigration minister Robert Goodwill told Parliament the EU was discussing the possibility of introducing a version of America’s Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA). Currently foreign travellers must pay a fee of $14 (£11) when they complete ESTA, an automated online system that determines their eligibility to travel to the US. “British people are now used to the US ESTA scheme and, therefore, we view with interest how the European scheme might develop and what similarities, and differences, there may be to the US scheme,” Mr Goodwill said. “This type of scheme is generally there to help enhance security. To get to know as much as possible about the people who are intending to travel. “It isn’t just flights, it could be people using ferries, or other border crossings into the European Union.” Alan Brown, an SNP member of the European Scrutiny Committee, pointed out that Leave advocates in the referendum campaign had said there would be no need for visa-like travel schemes after Brexit.

New Senate bill seeks sweeping H-1B changes

New Senate bill seeks sweeping H-1B changes
H-1B visas should be distributed to U.S. grads first, not outsourcing firms, say Sens. Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin. A new bill in Congress would give foreign students who graduate from U.S. schools priority in getting an H-1B visa. The legislation also "explicitly prohibits" the replacement of American workers by visa holders. This bill, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, was announced Thursday by its co-sponsors, U.S. Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), longtime allies on H-1B reform. Grassley is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which gives this bill an immediate leg up in the legislative process.
This legislation would end the annual random distribution, via a lottery, of H-1B visas, and replace it with a system to give priority to certain types of students. "Congress created these programs to complement America's high-skilled workforce, not replace it," said Grassley, in a statement. "Unfortunately, some companies are trying to exploit the programs by cutting American workers for cheaper labor." Foreign nationals in the best position to get one of the 85,000 H-1B visas issued annually will have earned an advanced degree from a U.S. school, have a well-paying job offer, and have preferred skills. The specific skills weren't identified, but will likely be STEM-related. It will be up to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to develop this priority system.
The bill requires "all employers who seek to hire H-1B visa holders to first make a good-faith effort to recruit American workers." This is something Grassley and Durbin have long sought in prior bills, but faced opposition from industry. IT outsourcing services firms that use H-1B workers to offshore work will face new restrictions. The bill prohibits a firm with "more than 50 employees, of which at least half are H-1B or L-1 holders, from hiring additional H-1B employees." Among the ideas that are circulating is a distribution system that gives priority to salary and/or favors non-dependent H-1B-using firms over H-1B-dependent firms. A dependent firm is a classification given to an employer that has 15% or more workers on a visa. There are a lot of other provisions in the Grassley-Durbin bill. It would "enhance" the ability of the U.S. Department of Labor to conduct investigations. It would also require new data reporting, including the gender of H-1B workers, something the government has not made available. The bill appears to raise the wages of L-1 workers, and includes new enforcement and audits. The L-1 is used for intra-company transfers. "For years, foreign outsourcing companies have used loopholes in the laws to displace qualified American workers and facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs," said Durbin. "The H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act would end these abuses and protect American and foreign workers from exploitation."
On March 2, 2017 U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) has introduced his own version, a new bill called the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2017. Pascrell's bill requires employers to make a "good faith effort" to hire U.S. workers before hiring an H-1B or L-1 worker. It sets limits on the number of H-1B visas that can go to a firm, and its seeks a new way of distributing visas that gives top priority to U.S. advanced degree grads. Pascrell's bill has some of the same provisions found in the Senate H-1B reform bill introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) last month, and has a wide range of co-sponsors, from liberal democrats to tea-party conservatives.

The LIFT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION BAN STAYS

The Ninth Circuit on Thursday refused to lift the block on President Donald Trump’s immigration ban for people from seven mostly Muslim countries, ruling that the government hadn't shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits in its appeal.

MORE CHANGES ARE COMING TO IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

More changes are coming to immigration system through Trump's executive orders. Separately Bills are also introduced in Congress.

The Trump administration has drafted an executive order that would change the way H-1B visas are issued. H-1B visas are widely used in the tech industry to hire foreign highly skilled and educated workers.“Our country’s immigration policies should be designed and implemented to serve, first and foremost, the U.S. national interest,” the draft reads, according to Bloomberg, which has viewed the copy and first reported on the matter. “Visa programs for foreign workers... should be administered in a manner that protects the civil rights of American workers and current lawful residents, and that prioritizes the protection of American workers—our forgotten working people—and the jobs they hold.” Businesses would have to try to hire American first. If they recruit foreign workers, priority would be given to the most highly paid, according to the Bloomberg report.
Beyond that, not much detail about the order is available. It covers not just H-1B visas, but other categories including L-1, E-2, and B1.

The changes are likely to mirror changes already being considered in Congress, which would have the effect of limiting outsourcing companies' abilities to replace American workers. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) announced a bill earlier this month that would tweak the H-1B system. Congress will consider proposal to raise H-1B minimum wage to $100,000. 
Last week, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced a more wide-ranging bill that would change the allocation of H-1B visas to a market-based system. In her system, most visas would be given to employers willing to pay 200 percent or 150 percent of prevailing local wages for highly talented workers. 
“My legislation refocuses the H-1B program to its original intent–to seek out and find the best and brightest from around the world and to supplement the US workforce with talented, highly paid, and highly skilled workers who help create jobs here in America, not replace them,” said Lofgren. 
The 65,000 H-1B visas given out each year go mostly to employers who hire technology workers. They are distributed in a lottery system, which in recent years has become dominated by tech outsourcing firms like Tata and Infosys. Those outsourcing firms, which are defined as “H-1B dependent” companies, need only to pay $60,000 annually to their workers in order to be exempt from various requirements, including demonstrating that they aren't displacing American workers. Issa’s bill would raise that exemption requirement to $100,000 per year, while Lofgren's bill would peg it to wage surveys that would make the minimum about $132,000. Lofgren’s bill would also get rid of the lottery system and replace it with a kind of market-oriented auction system.

IMMIGRATION LAW - EB-5 NEWS

On January 13, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Making (“NPRM”) seeking to amend the current EB-5 regulations.  As required by the Administrative Procedure Act, DHS has published theNPRM inthe Federal Register for notice to the public and has given the public a three (3) month period to provide comments.  All public comments are due to DHS by April 11, 2017.   You can read proposed rules by following the link below https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/11/2017-00441/eb-5-immigrant-investor-regional-center-program.

The essence of the Rules is as follows:

1. Increase of the Minimum Investment Amount  to $1.35 million for EB-5 projects located in a TEA and to $1.8 million for EB-5 projects that are not located in a TEA. 

2. States will no longer have the ability to designate high unemployment rate TEAs.  Instead, USCIS will make the designation using the standards presented in the Proposed Rules.  Proposed Rules would limit TEAs to a Metropolitan Statistical Area, counties, cities or towns with a population of more than 20,000, a census tract, or a group of adjacent census tracts, if they have experienced an average unemployment rate at least 150% of the national average rate.  It only allows census tracts to be averaged if they are adjacent (abutting) to the tract in which the project is located.  

3. DHS is proposing to amend the definition of “rural area” to mean any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area (“MSA”) or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more based on the most recent decennial census of the United States.  

4. Proposed rules allow derivative applicants (spouses and children of the investor) to file an I-829 Petition on their own if the investor is unable or unwilling to file the I-829 Petition, assuming that the investor was otherwise eligible to have the conditions removed on permanent residence.

MORE PROTECTION FOR MORTGAGE BORROWERS IN CALIFORNIA

ANITDEFICIENCY PROVISION APPLIES TO SHORT SALES

California Supreme Court in the case Coker v JP Morgan Chase, S213137 held that anti-deficiency provision applies not only to a foreclosure sale but also to a short sale.

Chase approved a short sale of the borrower’s property, received the proceeds, released security interest and initiated a collection action for the deficiency – difference between accepted short sale amount and full loan amount. Surprisingly, San Diego County Superior Court agreed with Chase’s position and crated dangerous precedent for thousand borrowers who entered into a short sale agreement with their respective mortgage lenders.

Court of Appeal reversed, holding that any effort by Chase to recover the deficiency would be barred by California Code of Civil Procedure section 580b and that borrower’s agreement to pay the deficiency balance was an unenforceable waiver of the statute’s protections. In so holding, the court explained that section 580b’s “protections apply after any sale, not just a foreclosure.” The court also rejected Chase’s contention that because Coker waived her rights under section 726, which requires a secured creditor to foreclose on a borrower’s property before seeking a personal judgment, section 580b does not apply. Supreme Court affirmed and borrowers in California received an extra layer of certainty and protection.

USER LOST TO YOUTUBE

Interesting Case Law in California– California Published Opinion: Lewis vs Youtube, judgement in favor of Youtube is affirmed.

H041127 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV256300)

Youtube suspended Lewis’s Youtube account for violation of the Youtube Terms of service by alleged commercial solicitation. After Lewis appealed the suspention, Youtube restored Lewis’s account, which allowed her to upload copies of the videos previously posted to her account, but not historical view counts posted to her account. Lewis filed a complaint for breach of contract, Youtube’s “Terms of service”, demanding either to reinstate her account or compensate her for damages related to the closing of her account.

California Court of Appeal ruled that Lewis cannot establish damages because the Terms of Service with Youtube include limit of liability clause related to Youtube maintaining customer’s accounts and therefore her breach of contract action failed.

Court of Appeal also found that Youtube Terms of service do not impose any obligations on free sharing service like Youtube to maintain and preserve special user’s content.