The State of Global Mobility in 2024 – Q&A with Stephen Chiew
Disclaimer: These are individual comments/points of view from experts in the field based on their professional experiences which do not necessarily reflect companies’ official stands on certain topics or matters.
This newsletter series delves into the challenges and innovations shaping global mobility and immigration program management. My goal is to learn directly from in-house legal teams and immigration managers about how to better serve their programs. By fostering stronger partnerships, we can improve the immigration experience for employees, businesses, and stakeholders alike.
Global mobility is undergoing a transformative shift which will accelerate in 2025. Employees increasingly seek flexibility and autonomy in deciding where to live and work and soon we will face a more restrictive policy framework. Companies are capitalizing on advanced technologies to expand their talent pools and retain top performers globally. Amid this evolution, in-house teams, working closely with outside immigration counsel, play a pivotal role in balancing compliance with business objectives—ensuring programs run smoothly while supporting strategic workforce initiatives.
In this issue, I’m excited to feature Stephen Chiew, Senior Corporate Counsel – Immigration at DISH Network. Stephen brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the conversation, having transitioned from private practice to launching in-house H-1B filing and managing the in-house immigration program.
Stephen’s innovative approach has transformed the way the company handles its immigration processes, blending the strategic oversight of program management with the detailed, hands-on expertise of case preparation. By implementing streamlined workflows, leveraging technology, and fostering direct engagement with employees, Stephen has made significant strides in optimizing DISH’s immigration program while ensuring compliance and efficiency.
His unique perspective as both a former outside counsel and current in-house immigration leader offers invaluable insights into building partnerships that enhance the employee experience and align with corporate objectives. I’m thrilled to share Stephen’s journey and the lessons he has learned along the way.
Ceri: Stephen, thank you for sharing your insight with us! I’m eager to hear from you because you made the leap from being a law clerk to an attorney at one of the largest immigration law firms in the world to now running a self-filing program as in-house counsel at DISH. Can you share what drew you to immigration law in the first place and what keeps you in the field?
Stephen: Thanks for the opportunity, Ceri! As my parents immigrated to the United States, there was definitely some interest from my family background. Additionally, prior to law school, I had the opportunity to work as an immigration paralegal, which provided me with the experience to learn about the work involved, as well as exposure to the variety of issues faced by those seeking non-immigrant and immigrant visas.
Ceri: Once you became an attorney, did you know that you wanted to eventually go in-house? What drew you to make that leap?
Stephen: Going in-house was something I had thought about but wasn’t a “goal” at which I was actively looking, as in-house immigration counsel roles are not as common as other practice areas. I was contacted by a recruiter about this opportunity to come in-house as DISH’s first in-house immigration counsel. At that point in my career, it was a unique opportunity to utilize my experience in private practice to launch an immigration program–transitioning it from a rather standard arrangement (HR and outside counsel) to one where work was split between an in-house team and outside counsel. It also provided me the opportunity to shift my day-to-day work to be more program management-focused, rather than case-focused, further developing those skill sets.
Ceri: From outside immigration counsel to now in-house immigration counsel at a major corporation filing hundreds of H-1B’s annually and managing hundreds of PERM green card cases, what is the same and what is different across these settings?
Stephen: As my team prepares and files our non-complex non-immigrant cases, much of my day includes many of the same tasks, such as reviewing petition drafts, reviewing forms, and signing petitions. I certainly appreciate being able to retain outside counsel for more complex cases that I used to have a role in preparing.
However, as mentioned above, the role incorporates more program management aspects and overseeing the relationship with our outside counsel. I also am involved in more internal advising for anything immigration and immigration adjacent. As examples, I’ve been involved more significantly in I-9 questions, hiring process compliance, training, terminations, and general immigration policy/strategy, which previously as outside counsel I had less of a role in.
One of the other changes is the mindset of whether a decision had a defensible legal argument to whether this is the best course of action for the company. For example, in private practice, if a client wanted to file a weaker (but defensible) visa petition, the decision may be to file it after advising the client of the strength of the case. When in-house, the variable of whether that is in the best interest of the company comes into play.
Another change comes from the fact that foreign nationals no longer necessarily have the company immigration contact as a “go-between”. Direct employee contact is much more frequent, which results in fielding more questions, including “walk-ins”.
Ceri: That’s great perspective in terms of your knowledge of what is best for the company when deciding whether to file a case compared to outside counsel’s approach who advises on immigration risk factors. Those walk-ins probably have you on your toes!
When you arrived at DISH, they were using a law firm for all filings, can you talk a little bit about the steps that you implemented to bring the H-1B filing program in-house?
Stephen: As someone coming from outside the organization and not being involved in DISH’s immigration work (I was not affiliated with the law firm they engaged for immigration services), the first step was learning how the organization operated and the “why” behind their processes. Maintaining some level of continuity with the existing processes was important so that the stakeholders had familiarity. That being said, a holistic review of the program was also completed.
I also purposely slowly transitioned work to the in-house team – starting with H-1B extensions. This allowed us to test if our processes developed on paper needed to be adjusted by working through cases where we had time to work out any issues (as extensions are initiated months before the actual expiration) before launching on more time-sensitive and high-visibility cases (e.g., Change of Employers or Amendments).
There were many steps that I viewed as “necessary” to be completed before filing any cases. These included aspects such as hiring/training paralegals, choosing/learning a case-management system, preparing templates/cover letters, choosing a degree evaluation provider, determining how costs are billed internally, coordinating with the shipping department, etc. Depending on the complexity of an organization, completing some of these steps might take longer than anticipated (for example, a case-management system will hold personal identifiable information and therefore, there may be additional reviews that need to be completed with an IT department before the contract can be signed).
Ceri: This is great information about the fundamentals of setting up an in-house program! Beyond H-1B’s, you’ve led significant initiatives to streamline immigration processes. What were some of the key strategies you implemented to improve efficiency?
Stephen: My team has looked at this on a couple of different levels. There are simple things, like having a regular report that provides us with the names of employees who have changed work locations. This provides us with an easy way to know if there are any visa compliance concerns.
Taking this a step further, working with some IT teams, we’ve leveraged tools to automate some of the more routine processes, such as case initiations, following up for approvals, and automatically updating employee data from the HRIS system.
We’ve also implemented processes that assist with automatically completing repetitive actions–for example, taking screenshots of answers to a questionnaire completed by a candidate for compliance purposes or creating a folder in a shared drive that helps with file organization.
Lastly, we try to make sure we are using the tools and processes already available to us. For example, the annual H-1B registration process is one of the key deliverables we have. Our case-management system has a tool that automatically enters all the names/details into the USCIS system. We do complete a quality control check prior to submitting the registration, but avoiding having to enter the data manually saves significant time and reduces the potential for errors from manual entry of this information.
Ceri: Your in-house friends might be calling you for help after this. It sounds like you have optimized technology quite a bit! What works really well in your program and what do you find are the biggest challenges?
Stephen: The aspect that comes to mind is the general efficiencies through having direct access to many of the stakeholders, points of contact, and HR data. Being able to resolve urgent situations by simply walking over to someone’s office, getting on a video meeting, or sending them a message on our internal chat system can be much quicker than an email or phone call. Additionally, having direct access to HR systems provides answers to questions that we can look up ourselves. HR contacts no longer need to be asked to find information, such as work locations, salary, job title, promotion date, etc. and relay that back to outside counsel.
Being an immigration attorney also allows me to handle some more complex situations internally without involving outside counsel, which can lower costs and often be resolved on a faster timeline since there are fewer schedules to accommodate. This certainly isn’t limited to being an attorney but rather goes to having a very knowledgeable and focused person on immigration and global mobility matters that can provide this benefit to a program.
Lastly, being in-house means I do not have other clients/accounts to manage–this allows my team and me to focus our efforts on DISH, without having to split time and priorities with other clients/accounts.
One of the bigger challenges we’ve had comes from the bifurcated arrangement of our immigration work between the in-house team (non-complex NIV cases) and other types of cases (complex NIV, PERM, EB-1, NIW, etc.). When you have all the work with one legal counsel, it is significantly easier to coordinate the multiple visa processes an employee may have active at one time (for example, an H-1B extension and a pending PERM process).
Another related consideration is maintaining accurate data and progress reports since cases for a single employee can “live” in two case management systems and two immigration teams.
This process requires consistent coordination and systems to track cases, which is something we have been looking at for continuous improvement.
Ceri: Immigration program management can sometimes be perceived as a transactional service, similar to handling benefits. What’s your perspective on this, especially in a corporate context when engaging with employees each with their own concerns and issues?
Stephen: While there certainly is an element of immigration being a transactional service, the nature of immigration means there is an impact on an employee’s livelihood and the company’s ability to benefit from the contributions of these employees. As such, it’s often a symbiotic relationship where ensuring these processes are working well benefits both employees and the organization. Of course, from the organization aspect, there are considerations of overall costs, general policy, and consistency throughout the organization that need to be applied. That being said, the nature of immigration means it behooves an organization to consider how meeting employees’ concerns can be beneficial for all parties involved.
Ceri: To tack-on to the question above, what steps have you taken to ensure that employees undergoing the immigration process feel supported and informed at every stage?
Stephen: Being proactive in communication helps keep employees aware of their situation and helps us communicate general updates to our visa-dependent population.
As an example, consider the H-1B registration process; we send email communications out to employees throughout the various stages letting them know when they’ve been submitted into the USCIS system, when the selection process has been completed, if they have/haven’t been selected, and any subsequent USCIS drawings. We also will travel to our larger work sites and conduct a town hall to make sure employees are aware of what to expect during the H-1B process and answer any questions they have.
Additionally, we make efforts to involve and inform employees’ managers and HR teams about employees’ situations and questions. This reduces the potential for “mixed messages” from being communicated to employees, but more importantly, it ensures that managers and HR are fully aware of an employee’s situation, questions, and concerns so the organization can better respond to their needs.
Ceri: What has been your proudest achievement at DISH and how do you envision the future of immigration in the corporate landscape?
Stephen: From my perspective, launching the program where we file the vast majority of all our NIV cases has been successful in lowering legal costs for DISH and providing a more streamlined experience. Being internal to the company provides some efficiencies in that it avoids having to work through an HR/Immigration team that can delay communications, especially if they are serving as a “go-between” for the employee and legal expert.
With the right setup and a large enough employee population, a company can realize significant savings through transitioning some work to an internal team. Companies don’t have to view this as an “all or nothing” proposition–they can still retain their existing counsel for complex cases (e.g., O-1s) and higher compliance/exposure situations (e.g. PERMs), while moving non-complex cases to an internal team. Or even looking at completing just the H-1B registration aspect with an internal process can bring efficiencies to a company.
That being said, it’s important to ensure that a company/organization is looking at this sort of transition to make sure they have individuals with the knowledge/experience to know what the issues/pitfalls are in the various case types and processes.
Ceri: Given the rapidly evolving immigration policies, what do you see as the main concerns for companies like DISH for the rest of this year and in 2025?
Stephen: The biggest thing that came to mind over the past couple of years has been the longer processing times at OFLC in PERM processes. Especially when you have a larger employee base, you have a certain timeline planned, and the longer adjudication time on prevailing wages and 9089 processing can start to impact any timelines you may have planned. Also related to this, have been the difficulties in successfully completing recruitment with the labor market conditions.
As with many others in the immigration/global mobility space, the impact of the upcoming administration change is being reviewed as we look at our program going into 2025 and beyond. This involves discussions with our outside counsel and reviewing our experiences from the first Trump administration, as well as considering what proactive steps should be considered as well as what changes will need to be incorporated into the various processes.
Ceri: Looking at the bigger picture, how do you believe the immigration counsel role is evolving within major corporations?
Stephen: Immigration and immigration-adjacent matters can often be overlooked/missed when corporations consider taking any number of actions. One of the benefits I see with being in-house is that I have more visibility into certain potential actions the company is considering, especially when discussing matters with our Employment and Compliance legal teams. Having an in-house immigration attorney who can also spot issues that might be missed in a more traditional setup where immigration is managed through an HR or compliance function who may not be as familiar with legal ramifications.
As another example, consider if a corporation is reviewing a proposed reduction in force. An immigration counsel can ensure the decision-makers are aware of the potential impact on employees and other immigration processes. Some of these considerations can involve offering return transportation to H-1B holders but also whether PERM processes will be impacted (which can then cause potential timing issues for certain employees). Beyond that, an immigration counsel can speak to the impact the termination would have on different situations the impacted employees may find themselves in after the action (grace periods, an inability to re-enter the US if overseas, etc.) to help company leadership as they make decisions.
Ceri: What advice would you offer to other in-house counsels who are just beginning to manage an immigration program in a large corporation?
Stephen: Understanding the key stakeholders who will advocate for you within the organization. Having a relationship with these individuals is invaluable in your management of the immigration program, especially if there are internal escalations. This will also help you when you want to propose changes to any part of the immigration program, as these stakeholders may be the ones whose sign-off you need on the changes and/or their work to “sell” the changes on a day-to-day basis.
Further, if you are coming from outside the organization, keeping relationships with the company’s current immigration counsel is essential. Given how long immigration processes take, your outside counsel has essential historical knowledge regarding why certain decisions were made or what considerations were made at that time (as an example, the AOS rush in Fall 2020).
Ceri: The goal of this newsletter is to improve the experience for all stakeholders. What advice would you give to outside counsel to help you improve the employee experience and you and your team’s experience?
Stephen: Communication is such an important aspect of improving the experiences of foreign nationals and company contacts. Timely and clear communication helps ensure all individuals involved are kept up to date and informed on where processes are. Sometimes a simple acknowledgment can go a long way.
Additionally, data integrity is the lifeblood of any immigration program and keeping that up to date is very important. As an internal stakeholder, errors in this information can result in mistakes – which, as we know in immigration, can have an outsized impact on employment authorization and future visa applications.
Ceri: Thank you, Stephen! I’ve learned a lot from you today and you provided food for thought in terms of key considerations for bringing aspects of immigration filings in-house. Thanks again!
