Page 36 - The Indian EYE 050126
P. 36
IMMIGRATION MAY 01, 2026 | The Indian Eye 36
H-1B Enforcement
While Working Abroad:
Why Are CBP Officers in
Abu Dhabi Scrutinizing LCAs?
BY CYRUS D. MEHTA AND ciaries who had been outside around H-1B employment of H-1B travelers transiting dividual seeks re-admission
the United States were asked in the U.S., which makes Abu Dhabi’s U.S. preclear- in H-1B classification and
KAITLYN BOX*
questions about whether the CBP’s apparent focus on ance facility, especially on CBP or USCIS evaluates
conditions described in the foreign remote-work pat- Etihad flights, where indi- whether they have complied
ecently, reports have Labor Conditions Applica- terns somewhat unusual viduals who have worked with, or will comply with, the
surfaced of issues
Rwith U.S. Customs tion (LCA) had been com- from a traditional LCA-en- remotely abroad for 2+ terms of the approved peti-
tion and LCA.
months are facing intensive
plied with while they were
forcement perspective.
and Border Protection working abroad. The LCA The American Immi- questioning and, in some The situation in Abu
(CBP) Preclearance in Abu framework and DOL’s pro- gration Lawyers Association cases, visa revocation” in a Dhabi raises interesting
Dhabi – namely, that benefi-
tective purpose are defined solicited examples of these recent LinkedIn post. questions, however, regard-
problems in March Although it is hoped ing the extent to which ac-
2026, and an article that these reports are aber- tivities abroad can impact
from the American Ba- rations that CBP will prevent an employer’s LCA compli-
zaar, despite misstating from recurring in future, ance.
some information, re- these reports are troubling. INA 212(n)(2)(C)(vii)
counts the plight of an The conditions stated on an specifies that an employer
individual who passed LCA, such as a beneficiary’s must continue to pay a full-
through Abu Dhabi pre- salary and worksite, are typ- time H-1B worker the wages
clearance and informed ically construed as applying indicated in the LCA even
officers that “she had only to employment within during a period of “nonpro-
remained in India for the U.S., as U.S. immigra- ductive period”, if the non-
close to two months and tion laws cannot generally productive status is “due to
had worked part time regulate employment that a decision by the employer
during that period while takes place abroad. (based on factors such as
using her Paid Time lack of work)”. This provi-
Off (PTO)…Officers Because H-1B is a U.S. sion prohibits “benching”,
allegedly determined or a scenario in which an
that she had spent too admission/status clas- employer stops paying the
long outside the United sification, a foreign na- required wages to an H-1B
States and questioned worker during periods in
the fact that she contin- tional who is physically which business is slow and
ued to receive pay from outside the U.S. is not there is insufficient work
m of her U.S. employer while for the individual. Given the
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC working remotely from ‘in’ H-1B status during types of questions allegedly
India. Her visa stamp being raised by officers at
that time and, as such,
was reportedly marked Abu Dhabi preclearance,
‘Cancelled and With- is not required to hold the Department of Labor
drawn,’ and she was could hypothetically find
H-1B status to perform
told she would need to that an employer had en-
apply again.” Gnana- services while abroad for gaged in “benching” and
mookan Senthurjothi, a a U.S. employer. hold the company liable
U.S. immigration law- for back wages if it had not
yer, reported instances terminated an employee’s
2 6th Floor The immigration conse-
of “ increased scrutiny quences arise when that in- H-1B employment in the
www.TheIndianEYE.com
