National Interest Exceptions for Travelers from Europe:  US Department of State Update July 16, 2020

On July 16, 2020 the U.S. Department of State released guidance outlining national interest exceptions to the Presidential Proclamations (PPs) prohibiting the admission  of travelers arriving from the Schengen Area (PP 9993) and the United Kingdom and Ireland (PP 9996).

Who may qualify?

The following travelers may qualify for a national interest exception:

  • Certain business travelers
  • Treaty Traders  and Treaty Investors
  • Academics
  • Students
  • Qualified business and student travelers who are applying for or have valid visas or ESTA authorizations

Notably, students traveling to the U.S.  from the Schengen Area, the UK, and Ireland holding valid F-1 and M-1 visas are not required to seek a national interest exception to travel to the U.S.    In contrast, students who  intend to  travel  to the U.S. on a J-1 visa must initiate an exception request.

The Department of State also continues to consider national interest exceptions for qualified travelers seeking to enter the United States for purposes related to humanitarian travel, public health response, and national security.

“Area” Ban v. “Visa” Ban

The aforementioned exceptions to the “area bans” are only available to travelers from the United  Kingdom, Ireland and the Schengen Area.  The Presidential Proclamations restricting travel to the US based on visa classification (“visa bans”) remain in effect.  An individual could fit within an exemption to an area ban, but still be restricted by the nonimmigrant visa ban nonimmigrant visa ban or the immigrant visa ban immigrant visa ban.

Gibney will continue to monitor how exceptions are processed and the information required to demonstrate eligibility.  Individuals seeking to enter the U.S. or apply for a visa under one of the exceptions are advised to consult with their designated Gibney representative for specific legal advice prior to any travel.

 

U.S. Entry Ban on Temporary Workers: State Department and CBP Update

The U.S. Department of State and   U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and have provided initial guidance clarifying the scope of Donald Trump’s June 22 proclamation banning the entry of certain H, L and J visa holders.

According to Department of State FAQs posted in a Twitter thread:

  • The proclamation does not revoke visas that are valid on June 24, 2020.   Foreign nationals with H, L, and J visas valid on June 24 (and their dependent spouses and children with valid visas)  may continue to be admitted to the U.S. during the visa validity period. This includes foreign nationals who have not yet entered the U.S. on their previously issued valid visas.
  • Renewal of H, L and J visas is subject to the proclamation’s restrictions. If a foreign national’s visa is valid on June 24, but subsequently expires, the individual will not  be permitted to renew the visa  and enter the U.S. while the proclamation is in effect.
  • Foreign nationals who are in the U.S. in valid H, L or J status, but whose passport visas have expired or will expire before December 31, 2020, may remain in the U.S. and extend their status as otherwise  permitted; however, if  these individuals depart the U.S., they may not be readmitted to the U.S. while the proclamation remains in effect.
  • Beneficiaries of approved H or L petitions or the covered J programs who were waiting for a visa appointment and who did not have a valid visa on June 24 will not be permitted to obtain a  visa and enter the U.S. while the proclamation is in effect, despite having an approved petition.
  • Physicians applying for J visas are not subject to the proclamation. By the terms of the proclamation, J-1 research scholars should also not be subject to the ban.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has also reported that CBP Headquarters  confirmed that Canadian citizens are not subject to the proclamation. (Canadians are not generally required to obtain visas, and as a result, are exempt from the proclamation.) In view of this exemption:

  • Canadian citizens entering the U.S. in H, L or J status may continue to enter the U.S. in H, L or J status, even as first time applicants for admission.
  • Canadian citizens may continue to  renew H, L and J status as otherwise permitted, and may be readmitted to the U.S. after international travel.
  • Dependent spouses and children who are Canadian citizens are exempt from the proclamation and  may continue to be admitted to the U.S. in H, L or J status. However, this only applies to Canadian citizens. Dependent spouses and children of Canadian citizens who are not themselves Canadian citizens do require a valid visa to enter the U.S. and are covered by the proclamation.

Background

On June 22, 2020 the Trump Administration issued the proclamation banning the entry of certain H, L and J visa holders, and extending a prior ban on the admission of individuals entering with immigrant visas. The ban took effect on  June 24, 2020 and will remain in place until at least December 31, 2020.  Additional information about the ban is available at Gibney.  The June 22 proclamation banning entry of certain nonimmigrant workers  does not apply to the B, E, F, O, P and TN visa categories. However, the coronavirus-related travel bans generally restricting entry to the U.S. from Europe, the United Kingdom and Ireland, China, Iran, and

Brazil, as well as the land border restrictions at the U.S., Canadian and Mexican borders, remain in place.

For additional information, please contact your designated Gibney representative.

President Bans Entry of Temporary Workers to U.S.

On June 22, 2020, President Trump issued a Proclamation suspending entry to the U.S. of foreign nationals in certain nonimmigrant (temporary) visa classifications. The entry ban takes effect June 24, 2020 at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

WHO IS IMPACTED BY THE BAN

Individuals in the following visa categories who are outside of the U.S. on June 24, 2020, and who do not hold a valid nonimmigrant visa or travel document (transportation letter, boarding foil, or advance parole document) are banned from entering the U.S.:

  • H-1B professional workers;
  • H-2B temporary non-agricultural workers;
  • J-1 exchange visitors participating in an intern, trainee, teacher, camp counselor, au pair, or summer work travel program;
  • L-1 intracompany transferees;
  • Dependent spouses and children of these visa holders.

WHO IS EXEMPT FROM THE BAN

The ban does not apply to

  • any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
  • any foreign national who is the spouse or child of a United States citizen;
  • any foreign national seeking to enter the United States to provide temporary labor or services essential to the United States food supply chain;
  • any foreign national whose entry would be in the national interest as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.

Consular officers will have the discretion to determine if a foreign national falls within one of the exemptions outlined above.

AVAILABILTY OF WAIVERS

The Secretaries of State, Labor and Homeland Security are authorized to define categories of exempted foreign nationals whose work is in the national interest and establish waiver standards. This may include foreign nationals whose work

  • is deemed critical to defense, law enforcement, diplomacy or the national security of the U.S.;
  • involves providing medical care to individuals who have contracted COVID-19 and are currently hospitalized;
  • involves providing medical research at U.S. facilities aimed at combatting COVID-19;
  • is necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the U.S.

The administration has offered few waivers in connection with its other bans, and we expect waivers will be very limited and difficult to secure.

DURATION OF BAN

The entry ban will remain in effect until December 31, 2020, and may be extended. The Secretary of Homeland Security is charged with consulting with the Secretaries of State and Labor to recommend modifications as deemed appropriate.

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AIMED AT FOREIGN WORKERS IN THE U.S.

The proclamation directs the Department of Homeland Security to consider other unspecified action addressing the H-1B program and employment-based green card sponsorship for professional and skilled workers, to ensure that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged by foreign nationals already in the U.S. We expect publication of regulations that impact foreign workers in the U.S. who are beneficiaries of these programs. The proclamation also directs the Department of Labor to undertake investigations to ensure employers hiring H-1B workers comply with all applicable rules and regulations.

CONTINUATION OF BAN BLOCKING ADMISSION OF IMMIGRANTS

The proclamation also continues the President’s April 2020 Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak through December 31, 2020. The April proclamation suspends the entry of select classes of immigrants currently outside the U.S. seeking to enter the U.S. as permanent residents with a new immigrant visa. Additional information about the ban on the admission of immigrants is available here.

IMPACT ON EMPLOYERS

  • U.S. companies, hospitals, universities and small businesses that seek to employ high-skilled and temporary workers, as well as multinational corporations that seek to leverage the expertise of employees from overseas affiliate offices, are now severely restricted in their ability to do so. Having already invested resources in recruiting and sponsoring foreign nationals for work visas, many employers will now find that, despite having approved petitions, sponsored individuals may be unable to secure visas and enter the United States, further disrupting workforce planning and business operations.
  • U.S. employers that sponsor H-1B visas should expect increased onsite investigations by the Department of Labor and Department of Homeland Security.
  • U.S. employers should expect regulatory proposals that further restrict or eliminate other work visas, impacting foreign national workers already in the U.S. These could include additional restrictive measures associated with qualifying an individual for an H-1B or L-1 visa, elimination of the Optional Practical Training employment program for foreign students, elimination of H-4 work authorization for the spouses of certain H-1B workers, as well as increased filing fees, among other measures.

While the proclamation’s stated rationale is to protect U.S. workers from the economic downturn stemming from the coronavirus pandemic, no empirical evidence was offered demonstrating that employing individuals in any of these visas classifications takes jobs from U.S. workers or harms the economy.  In the weeks leading up the ban, members of Congress, employers, business groups, and universities made contrary arguments, voicing their strong opposition and calling the proposal detrimental to the economy. Legal challenges to the ban are expected.

Gibney will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as they become available. If you have questions or need specific legal advice, please contact your Gibney representative.

Updated EEOC Guidance on Covid-19, the ADA and Other EEO Laws: What Employers Need to Know

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity commission (EEOC) updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers about COVID-19, the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other EEO laws on Thursday June 11 and again on Wednesday June 17, 2020.

The latest EEOC updates focus on a number of important subjects for employers including COVID-19 testing, responding to various requests for accommodations, offering flexible working arrangements, and steps to take to avoid discrimination claims based on age, sex and pregnancy in the context of reopening the employer’s business.

Employers May Not Require Employees to Undergo Antibody Testing

In light of CDC’s guidance that antibody test results should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace, the EEOC advised employers that an antibody test does not meet the ADA’s standard for medical examinations or inquiries for current employees. Therefore, requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re-enter the workplace is prohibited under the ADA. Importantly, this change only applies to antibody testing and not testing for presence of the actual virus which is still allowed under certain circumstances.

The EEOC also stated that an employee entering the worksite and requesting an alternative method of screening due to a medical condition is making a request for reasonable accommodation under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. Thus, if the requested screening alternative is easy to provide and inexpensive, the employer may choose to make it available. If the employee’s disability is not obvious or already known by the employer, the employer may ask the employee for information to establish that the condition is a disability and, if necessary, may request medical documentation of the disability and needed accommodation.

The ADA Does Not Require Employers to Consider Employee Requests for Accommodation to Avoid Exposure to Family Member with Disability

Significantly, the new EEOC guidance clearly states that while employers must make reasonable accommodations to employees with respect to the employee’s disabilities, the ADA does not require any accommodation in order to avoid exposing a family member who is at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The EEOC clarified that while the ADA does not require employers to accommodate employees based on the disability-related needs of a non-employee with whom the employee is associated, employers are free to provide flexibilities, but should be careful not to engage in disparate treatment on a protected EEO basis when providing additional flexibilities beyond what the law requires.

Employers May Not Involuntarily Exclude Older Workers and Pregnant Workers from the Workplace

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits an employer from involuntarily excluding an individual from the workplace based on his or her being 65 or older, even if the employer acts for reasons such as protecting the employee due to higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. While the ADEA does not include a right to reasonable accommodation for older workers due to age, employers are free to provide flexibility to workers age 65 and older even if it results in younger workers ages 40-64 being treated less favorably based on age in comparison. The EEOC noted that workers age 65 and older also may have medical conditions that bring them under the protection of the ADA, and as such may request reasonable accommodation for their disability as opposed to their age.

Similarly, the EEOC advised employers that they may not exclude an employee from the workplace involuntarily due to pregnancy. Even if motivated by benevolent concern due to the pandemic, an employer is not permitted to single out employees on the basis of pregnancy for adverse employment actions including involuntary leave, layoff, or furlough.

However, federal employment discrimination laws may trigger accommodation for employees based on pregnancy. Even though pregnancy itself is not an ADA disability, pregnancy-related medical conditions may themselves be disabilities under the ADA. Employers must consider requests for reasonable accommodation due to pregnancy-related medical conditions under the usual ADA rules. The EEOC reminded employers that Title VII requires that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions be treated the same as others who are similar in their ability or inability or work. Thus, a pregnant employee may be entitled to job modifications, including telework, changes to work schedules or assignments, and leave to the extent provided for other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

Employers May Invite Employees to Request Flexibility in Work Arrangements in Advance of Employees Returning to Work

Employers are permitted to make information available in advance to all employees about who to contact to request accommodation for a disability that they may need upon return to the workplace, even if no date has been announced for their return. An employer may choose to include in such a notice all the CDC-listed medical conditions that may place people at higher risk of serious illness if they contract COVID-19, and explain that the employer is willing to consider on a case-by-case basis any requests from employees who have these or other medical conditions. If requests are received in advance, the employer may begin a discussion with the employee focused on whether the impairment is a disability and the reasons that an accommodation is needed.

An employer also may send a general notice to all employees who are designated for returning to the workplace, noting that the employer is willing to consider requests for accommodation or flexibilities on an individualized basis. Regardless of the approach, employers should ensure that whoever receives inquiries knows how to handle them consistent with the different federal employment nondiscrimination laws that may apply.

Employers May Not Treat Employees Differently Based on Sex or other Protected Characteristics When Offering Flexible Working Arrangements

The EEOC reminded employers that provide telework, modified schedules, or other benefits to employees with school-age children due to school closures or distance learning during the pandemic that they may not treat employees differently based on sex or other EEO-protected characteristics. The EEOC provided as an example that female employees cannot be given more favorable treatment than male employees because of a gender-based assumption about who may have caretaking responsibilities for children.

Employers Should be Watchful for Anti-Asian Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace During the Pandemic, Including Through Electronic Means While Teleworking

Managers should be alert to demeaning, derogatory, or hostile remarks directed to employees who are or are perceived to be of Asian national origin, including remarks about the coronavirus or its origins. Management should understand that harassment may occur using electronic communication tools – regardless of whether employees are in the workplace, teleworking, or on leave – and also in person between employees at the worksite. An employer that learns that an employee who is teleworking is sending harassing emails to another worker should take the same actions it would take if the employee was in the workplace. Employers may choose to send a reminder to the entire workforce noting prohibition on harassment, reminding employees that harassment will result in disciplinary action, and inviting anyone who experiences or witnesses workplace harassment to report it to management.

As legal developments related to COVID-19 are evolving rapidly on the federal, state, and local level, employers are encouraged to keep aware of additional guidance and regulations that will be issued by federal and state departments in the coming days. As always, we encourage employers to consult with counsel with their specific questions and concerns related to COVID-19.

USMCA Takes Effect July 1, 2020

The  United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will take effect on July 1, 2020.  The USMCA replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which expires on June 30, 2020.

From an immigration perspective, the USMCA represents a repackaging of NAFTA. The USMCA retains key immigration benefits of NAFTA, including provisions allowing for the temporary entry without quotas of Business Visitors, Traders and Investors, Intracompany Transferees, and Professionals. With respect to Professional workers, USMCA retains all of the occupations previously designated as eligible for the NAFTA “TN” visa, though the new agreement does not add any additional occupations.

Implementation of the USMCA does not alter the temporary travel restrictions currently in effect at the U.S., Canadian and Mexican land borders, stemming from the coronavirus pandemic.  Admission restrictions for non-essential business travel will remain in place until at least July 21, 2020.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers may still adjudicate immigration benefits applications filed under the USMCA.

Gibney will monitor implementation of the new agreement and provide ongoing guidance with respect to any procedural changes related to the admission of business persons under the USMCA.

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Rescission of DACA

On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump Administration’s attempt to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, ruling that the  U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s decision to rescind the program was arbitrary and capricious.  The DACA program, established by President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order, protects over 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. Pursuant to the program, DACA recipients (often referred to as “Dreamers”) may be granted temporary relief from deportation and temporary work authorization.  The program does not provide a pathway to permanent resident status in the U.S.

Today’s decision makes clear that the Trump Administration has the authority to continue the DACA program or to rescind it. However, if the Administration elects to rescind the program,  DHS must issue a new decision terminating the program and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the agency is no longer offering protections to DACA recipients.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that DHS “failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”  DHS vs. Regents of the University of California Et Al.

What’s Next?

Under current rules, DACA recipients may continue to renew their DACA  benefits, including employment authorization. Previously issued employment authorization documents remain valid. DHS may publish a new memorandum terminating the program, this time providing  a reasoned explanation for termination, consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Court’s holding.  Such action could be subject to further legal challenges.

Given the uncertainty stemming from executive action concerning the temporary program and the ensuing legal challenges, it remains incumbent on Congress to enact legislation  providing  permanent protection for Dreamers.

For additional information, please contact your designated Gibney representative.

U.S.–Canada–Mexico Border Travel Restrictions Extended

UPDATE – On June 16, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security again extended the suspension of entry of  certain persons traveling  to the U.S. from Canada and Mexico through land ports of entry. The travel restriction is extended 30 days, and will remain in place through July 21, 2020.  The United States previously reached mutual agreements with Canada and Mexico to limit non-essential travel at land Ports of Entry and ferry terminals to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The restrictions do not apply to air travel.

RESTRICTED NON-ESSENTIAL TRAVEL

Restricted non-essential travel includes individuals traveling to the U.S. for tourism purposes, including sightseeing, recreation, gambling or attending cultural events.

ESSENTIAL TRAVEL

Essential travel is permitted. On March 24, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published Federal Register notices with additional information about impacted travel from Canada and Mexico, specifying that essential travel includes, but is not limited to:

  • U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents returning to the United States;
  • Individuals traveling for medical purposes (e.g., to receive medical treatment in the United States);
  • Individuals traveling to attend educational institutions;
  • Individuals traveling to work in the United States (e.g., individuals working in the farming or agriculture industry who must travel between the United States and Mexico or Canada in furtherance of such work);
  • Individuals traveling for emergency response and public health purposes (e.g., government officials or emergency responders entering the United States to support Federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial government efforts to respond to COVID-19 or other emergencies);
  • Individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade (e.g., truck drivers supporting the movement of cargo between the United States and Mexico or Canada);
  • Individuals engaged in official government travel or diplomatic travel;
  • Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, returning to the United States; and
  • Individuals engaged in military-related travel or operations.

ESSENTIAL TRAVEL CAUTION

Under the order, CBP may still  adjudicate Free Trade applications at the border, including L-1 petitions and TN applications for Canadians. Travelers with valid visas and visa exempt travelers, including individuals traveling on the Visa Waiver Program, may be admitted at Ports of Entry from Canada or Mexico, though these travelers should expect scrutiny as to whether their travel meets essential travel criteria.     Despite CBP’s fairly broad definition of essential travel, not all business travel may be deemed essential by a CBP officer at a Port of Entry.   Individuals planning to enter the U.S. from Canada or Mexico during the restricted period should confer with counsel prior to travel.  There have been anecdotal reports that some CBP officers have denied admission to individuals because their employment was not deemed essential.

With respect to travel from Mexico, U.S. consular closures in Mexico directly impact the ability to secure L and TN visas for admission to the U.S.

As a reminder, foreign nationals who have traveled in one of the otherwise restricted countries (China, Iran and Europe) in the 14 days prior to requesting admission to the U.S. from Canada or Mexico will not be admitted.

Finally, CBP advises that any person with COVID-19 symptoms should not make a personal appearance at a Port of Entry.

For additional information, please contact your Gibney representative or email info@gibney.com.

US Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling on Employment Discrimination Protections for Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Employees

On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination because of sex, extends to gay, lesbian, and transgender employees. Thus, adverse action against employees because of their sexual orientation or identity is now barred by federal statute in all 50 states.

The United States Supreme Court determined in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that employers violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its broad prohibition of employment discrimination because of sex, when they discharged employees for being gay or transgender.  The Court’s opinion also resolved the cases of Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. and EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.  The decision will allow people who claim they were discriminated against in the workplace based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, to file charges of employment discrimination and lawsuits, in the same way as people claiming race discrimination.

Understanding Title VII

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in pertinent part, that Employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or . . . discharge any individual, or otherwise . . . discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . sex.”  The Court noted that the parties conceded that the term “sex” in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female. The Court further noted the parties’ agreement that the ordinary meaning of “because of’ is ‘by reason of’ or ‘on account of.’” The Court held that “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.”  Thus, Title VII incorporates the but-for causation standard, which means that a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action so long as the employee’s sex was part of the decision.

What This Means

  • An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally discharges an individual employee based in part on sex, regardless of whether other factors besides the employee’s sex contributed to the decision.
  • Because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, employers who intentionally penalize employees for being homosexual or transgender violate Title VII.
  • Gay, lesbian, and transgender employees no longer need to rely on state and municipal protections which were only available in 24 of the 50 states and a number of cities.
  • Employees who suffer adverse employment actions due to their sexual orientation or sexual identity may now may assert federal claims, gaining access to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the federal courts.

What Employers Should Now Consider

  • Employers who operate in states and localities that do not provide statutory protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status should update their employment policies, including their harassment policies and complaint forms, to ensure that they are in full compliance with Title VII as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
  • Employers should review decisions contemplating adverse employment action against an employee for economic or performance reasons to ensure that the employee’s sexual orientation or transgender status played no part in the decision making.
  • Employers that have not already done so, should add avoidance of discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status to their management and employee harassment avoidance trainings

As always, we encourage employers to consult with counsel with their specific questions and concerns related to compliance with Title VII or other federal, state and local employment discrimination statutes.

COVID 19: UK Issues New Travel Rules Effective June 8

The United Kingdom has issued new rules for travelers entering or returning to the country on or after Monday, June 8, 2020.

Resident and Visitor Guidelines

Returning residents or visitors traveling to the UK on or after June 8 will be required to:

This requirement will apply to British citizens, residents of the UK, and international visitors entering for business or tourism.  Travelers are encouraged to check the latest public health advice on coronavirus before travel or upon arrival in the UK.

Exempt Travelers

Individuals traveling to the UK from the Common Travel Area (the Republic of Ireland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) are exempt if they have been present in the Common Travel Area for 14 days prior to entering the UK. The full guidance on exemptions is available here.

Other Key Considerations

  • Failure to self-isolate can result in a fine of up to £1000 and failure to provide accurate contact information or keep contact information updated during self-isolation, may result in a fine of up to £3,200.
  • Additional information regarding regulations for self-isolation can be found here.
  • This structure will be reviewed by the British Government every three weeks and may be withdrawn if the COVID-19 situation improves.

Gibney will continue to monitor these updates. For questions, please contact your Gibney representative or email info@gibney.com.

Proclamation Suspends Entry of Certain Chinese Nationals on F and J Visas

On May 29, 2020, President Trump issued a Proclamation suspending the entry of certain students and researchers from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).   The stated purpose is to limit access to sensitive U.S. technologies and intellectual property by restricting F and J visas for certain Chinese nationals. The Proclamation is effective June 1, 2020.

Who is impacted?

The Proclamation bars the entry certain nationals of the PRC seeking to enter the U.S. on an F (student) or J (exchange visitor) visa to pursue graduate-level study or conduct research in the U.S. who have ties to entities in the PRC that support or implement China’s military-civil fusion strategy.

China’s “military-civil fusion” (MCF) strategy refers to “actions by or at the behest of the PRC to acquire and divert foreign technologies, specifically critical and emerging technologies, to incorporate into and advance the PRC’s military capabilities.”

The Proclamation targets graduate students and researchers who have any of the following ties to an entity in the PRC that supports or implements China’s MCF strategy:

  • receives funding from such entity
  • is currently employed by, studies at, or conducts research at or on behalf of, such entity or
  • has been employed by, studied at, or conducted research at or on behalf of, such entity.

The Proclamation also gives the Secretary of State discretion to revoke F or J visas of certain Chinese nationals currently in the U.S. who otherwise meet the criteria for suspension of entry.  Revocation of a visa by the Department of State does not automatically revoke valid status in the U.S.; rather, it invalidates the visa stamp for future entry to the U.S.  Chinese nationals in the U.S. in F or J status should consult with program sponsors and/or immigration counsel before departing the U.S.

Who is not impacted?

The Proclamation does not apply to:

  • Undergraduate students;
  • Lawful permanent residents of the United States;
  • Spouses of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents;
  • Members of the United States Armed Forces and any foreign national who is a spouse or child of a member of the United States Armed Forces;
  • Foreign nationals whose travel falls within the scope of Section 11 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement or who would otherwise be allowed entry into the United States pursuant to United States obligations under applicable international agreements;
  • Foreign nationals studying or conducting research in a field involving information that would not contribute to the PRC’s military-civil fusion strategy, as determined by relevant agencies;
  • Foreign nationals whose entry would further United States law enforcement objectives, as determined by relevant agencies;
  • Foreign nationals whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by relevant agencies.

The Proclamation does not prevent a person from seeking asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consistent with U.S. law.

The Secretary of State, or his designee, has the sole discretion to determine whether a person is subject to or exempt from the Proclamation, pursuant to standards the Secretary establishes.

What are the effective dates?

The Proclamation is effective at 12:00 p.m. eastern daylight time on June 1, 2020, and will remain in effect until modified or terminated.

How will this proclamation be implemented?

We expect additional guidance regarding implementation of the rule at U.S. consulates and ports of entry.   The Secretary of State is also authorized to promulgate regulations regarding admissibility consistent with the Proclamation.

Within 60 days, the Proclamation directs the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to review nonimmigrant and immigrant programs and recommend any other measures that would mitigate the risk posed by the PRC’s acquisition of sensitive United States technologies and intellectual property.

We also expect heightened scrutiny of all Chinese nationals applying for temporary visas or immigration benefits.   Under the Proclamation, any foreign national who willfully misrepresents a material fact, seeks to circumvent the Proclamation through fraudulent means, or enters the United States illegally, will be deemed a priority for deportation.

What is the impact on employers?

U.S. educational institutions, program sponsors, and employers should consult with immigration counsel as well as export control experts to evaluate the potential impact of the Proclamation on students and employees, including those working pursuant to Optional Practical Training (OPT).  Chinese nationals should consult with their designated school officials, program sponsors and/or immigration counsel before applying for an F or J visa or departing the U.S.

The breadth of the Proclamation’s impact will depend on the specific Chinese entities and universities deemed to be supporting or implementing China’s MCF strategy, which fields of research and technology may be exempted because they would not contribute to China MCF strategy, and how the Department of State exercises its discretion to revoke visas for those currently working or studying in the U.S.

Gibney will continue to monitor developments and provide updates.  If you have any questions about this alert, please contact your Gibney representative or email info@gibney.com.