arjunpa
08-18 11:35 AM
Thanks for the replies guys....
TXH1B,
The RFE as per my employer is about Vendor/Client Details and a latest paystub from the current job. Since I started working already and was getting paid, my employer generated a paystub and supplied the same.
TXH1B,
The RFE as per my employer is about Vendor/Client Details and a latest paystub from the current job. Since I started working already and was getting paid, my employer generated a paystub and supplied the same.
wallpaper VOTA A TAMARA EN LA ENCUESTA
black_logs
04-13 10:00 AM
But before you send it you make sure you do not want the labor substitution to stay. The AILA draft supports labor substitution.
Here you go, you can use this as a draft and keep the relevant parts of the comments or adjust accordingly : http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8652851
Here you go, you can use this as a draft and keep the relevant parts of the comments or adjust accordingly : http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8652851
paskal
07-08 08:37 PM
none of the forms ask for any of this
attorneys like to file them for "completeness"
i think they feel it strengthens the case and avoids unneeded questions
mine wantedW2 from 2003 (since i joined this job) but no returns
and last 2-3 pay stubs
BUT: mine is an NIW case so i think she wanted to prove continuous service since 2003 in this job (under served area), she also asked the employer for a payroll printout since january.
attorneys like to file them for "completeness"
i think they feel it strengthens the case and avoids unneeded questions
mine wantedW2 from 2003 (since i joined this job) but no returns
and last 2-3 pay stubs
BUT: mine is an NIW case so i think she wanted to prove continuous service since 2003 in this job (under served area), she also asked the employer for a payroll printout since january.
2011 de algún atentado en su
kondur_007
10-30 04:06 PM
In my case - which is little different than you since I'm actually transferring my job to a different subsidiary of the same employer with employer's blessing - attorney advised to file AC21 even though I had just received my GC. It sounds counter-intuitive but his logic behind it was as follows: USCIS will surely reject AC21 letter stating the candidate has already received GC. You can then keep this response in your file and use it to defend your case if there is any problem down the road (for example, during your citizenship processing) since you had informed USCIS and they themselves said it's not necessary. In case they do not reject your AC21 request you will still be fine since it means you invoked AC21 even though you got your GC so it should still be okay to switch before 6 months.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
more...
chintals
09-03 11:43 AM
I have got an LUD on 09/01/2009 for both the cases, but the status is still pending.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
Queen Josephine
May 23rd, 2005, 07:38 PM
Bob, Exmoor I'm saving for a vacation trip (considering it would take me a day to just get there!)
Now Red Rock, well, I can do that in a day! (Actually, I have been there before and I can tell you those rocks are enormous)
Now Red Rock, well, I can do that in a day! (Actually, I have been there before and I can tell you those rocks are enormous)
more...
srarao
07-21 11:03 PM
Hello,
When I first took my medical tests for I-485 with a doctor, the doctor put an additional document stating that: "I have a positive PPD that was read as 9mm of induration. A NORMAL chest x-ray was read. The patient is refered to their PCP or County Health Department for evaluation and possible treatment with INH for 9 months".
Now I received the RFE from CIS asking for the following:
"The form I-693 submitted is hereby returned because you TB test results were not documented appropriately. Additional documentation submitted from Civil Surgeon indicates that you were possibly being refered to the County Health Department for evaluation and have received teh follow up treatment.
The I-693 form must be properly endorsed by Civil Surgeon to reflect the following:
-> The date you first refered to the local health dept for evaluation
-> Name and address of the health dept
-> results of the X-ray and other TB test
-> Based on which you are medically cleared for adjustment status
"
If anyone had similar experiences, please let me know how to proceed on this issue.
PS: I got very late appointment with County Health department, so If I go to a private TB specialist and If I take the results to the original doctor and can he able to update my I-693 based on the TB specialist results?
If I go on 9 month medication will CIS wait 9 months to further process my petition or hold my EAD status?
If I go to a new doctor and If he gives me a new set of medical results, will CIS overlook previous doctor's comments?
I dont have much time as I just had 20 days left to send back my results to CIS.
Thanks for yor help.
Ravi
When I first took my medical tests for I-485 with a doctor, the doctor put an additional document stating that: "I have a positive PPD that was read as 9mm of induration. A NORMAL chest x-ray was read. The patient is refered to their PCP or County Health Department for evaluation and possible treatment with INH for 9 months".
Now I received the RFE from CIS asking for the following:
"The form I-693 submitted is hereby returned because you TB test results were not documented appropriately. Additional documentation submitted from Civil Surgeon indicates that you were possibly being refered to the County Health Department for evaluation and have received teh follow up treatment.
The I-693 form must be properly endorsed by Civil Surgeon to reflect the following:
-> The date you first refered to the local health dept for evaluation
-> Name and address of the health dept
-> results of the X-ray and other TB test
-> Based on which you are medically cleared for adjustment status
"
If anyone had similar experiences, please let me know how to proceed on this issue.
PS: I got very late appointment with County Health department, so If I go to a private TB specialist and If I take the results to the original doctor and can he able to update my I-693 based on the TB specialist results?
If I go on 9 month medication will CIS wait 9 months to further process my petition or hold my EAD status?
If I go to a new doctor and If he gives me a new set of medical results, will CIS overlook previous doctor's comments?
I dont have much time as I just had 20 days left to send back my results to CIS.
Thanks for yor help.
Ravi
2010 Ni hao mis lind@s bloguer@s!
voldemar
03-20 11:15 AM
Not sure how withdrawing an approved I140 is good for the employee??
The general feeling is that I140 withdrawal is not necessary for the employer (but H1b is). But employers used to do this for labor substitution - now there is no such incentive. But still some lawyers suggest employers to do this - in my old company which is a large well known software company (with 10k+ employees worldwide) the HR group follows immigration attorneys almost blindly. All immigration issues are handled by a big law firm - many of regular immigration matters are done by paralegals who does not know much (I am not exaggerating when I say I know more than them) - but our HR has a policy that they would follow what those attorney/paralegal is saying. It seems the law firm is suggesting them to withdraw all applications including approved i140 - obviously the law firm would charge them for this so that is their interest.
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
The general feeling is that I140 withdrawal is not necessary for the employer (but H1b is). But employers used to do this for labor substitution - now there is no such incentive. But still some lawyers suggest employers to do this - in my old company which is a large well known software company (with 10k+ employees worldwide) the HR group follows immigration attorneys almost blindly. All immigration issues are handled by a big law firm - many of regular immigration matters are done by paralegals who does not know much (I am not exaggerating when I say I know more than them) - but our HR has a policy that they would follow what those attorney/paralegal is saying. It seems the law firm is suggesting them to withdraw all applications including approved i140 - obviously the law firm would charge them for this so that is their interest.
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
more...
onemorecame
08-21 04:14 PM
There were twobiometrics. One was with initial application (probably Nov/Dec 2005) and another was in May 2007 when the first one expired (FP is valid for 15 months).
are you in EB2?
are you in EB2?
hair Ke tal mis bloguer@s!
glen
04-09 04:42 PM
Approved I-140 is good enough for applying for three year extension. I don't think there is any rule to wait for 365 days after I-140. I guess the 365 day rule is for pending labour.
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
more...
bluez25
07-15 02:58 PM
I will keep you guys posted of my happenings....
hot yo! la ultima en salir..
sprash
10-15 04:00 PM
I saw the suggestion of asking lawyer to send AP while you travel to India without it. Although it sounds like a good idea but could be dangerous. I had a situation last year when I travelled to India with AP applied for but not approved. Unfortunately i had my old passport and visa damaged in India. When my lawyer wanted to expedite AP so that i can travel back as my old Visa was damaged and the only way to travel back was to use AP, they found out USCIS has issued an RFE on AP. Though RFP was trivial and they only wanted a clear copy of first page of passport and AP was approved immediately when it was submitted.
I agree. This is very risky. I had applied for AP way back in June '08 and while my wife got her AP in AUG, mine was happily ignored till used DHS 7001 to escalate my case. I ultimately received an RFE saying that I did not include photos (which I know 100% sure I did ... they probably lost them). 3 Soft LUDs since they've received my photos, but no approval yet. I might be canceling my trip to India that commences on thanksgiving weekend if it does not come in time.
I agree. This is very risky. I had applied for AP way back in June '08 and while my wife got her AP in AUG, mine was happily ignored till used DHS 7001 to escalate my case. I ultimately received an RFE saying that I did not include photos (which I know 100% sure I did ... they probably lost them). 3 Soft LUDs since they've received my photos, but no approval yet. I might be canceling my trip to India that commences on thanksgiving weekend if it does not come in time.
more...
house Dos horas, una peli y una
petepatel
08-21 09:49 AM
Congrats
tattoo Bonjor mis queridas blogueras
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
pictures mi sobrenombre es
Lord Rahl
03-04 10:00 PM
ames, post your picture in your own thread with a title for it under the Just Draw Yourself sectoin of the forums HERE (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=152).
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
dresses Tracklist: 01. Intro02.
h1techSlave
09-22 09:22 PM
Companies like Microsoft are indeed greedy. But Microsoft shareholders like me and many others in this forum are saints.
As long as greedy corporations like microsoft exist noting will happen to H1B program..its the economy that's it ..once it start moving up h1b will become l1b and the import of cheap labor starts once again .....you guys are just spreading fear nothing else ....
As long as greedy corporations like microsoft exist noting will happen to H1B program..its the economy that's it ..once it start moving up h1b will become l1b and the import of cheap labor starts once again .....you guys are just spreading fear nothing else ....
more...
makeup Techno
desi3933
07-20 04:29 PM
My H1 is expiring in Oct 2008 and my employer did not allow me to apply for EAD.
As for your questions, If you don't have a valid H1 and no EAD, you are out of status. That can have an adverse effect on your I-485 if such period exceeds 180 days.
about the 90-day thing, USCIS used to allow you to walk into a local office and get an interim EAD if your EAD application is pending for 90 days or more, but they seem to have discontinued that practice. Moreover, it will take much longer than 90 days now to get an EAD.
You can apply EAD yourself but you need the I-485 receipt notice for that and I'm sure such employer won't give that to you either.
>> If you don't have a valid H1 and no EAD, you are out of status
Partly correct. One is out of status ONLY if he/she is working without H1 or EAD. Without H1 or EAD one is allowed to stay without working (unpaid leave of absence) while I-485 is pending.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
As for your questions, If you don't have a valid H1 and no EAD, you are out of status. That can have an adverse effect on your I-485 if such period exceeds 180 days.
about the 90-day thing, USCIS used to allow you to walk into a local office and get an interim EAD if your EAD application is pending for 90 days or more, but they seem to have discontinued that practice. Moreover, it will take much longer than 90 days now to get an EAD.
You can apply EAD yourself but you need the I-485 receipt notice for that and I'm sure such employer won't give that to you either.
>> If you don't have a valid H1 and no EAD, you are out of status
Partly correct. One is out of status ONLY if he/she is working without H1 or EAD. Without H1 or EAD one is allowed to stay without working (unpaid leave of absence) while I-485 is pending.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend mis tem ♥s
roseball
04-07 09:00 PM
Guess what I discovered today? I found the filled in W7 form and notarized copies of my wife's passport in my house. All this while I was so confident that I did send the W7 form along with tax return form, but it turned out I forgot to do so :(. I called IRS and they told me that I need to fill in Amended Tax Return form (Form 1040X) now. On the contrary, my tax preparer (CPA) is saying I just need to resend Form 1040 and W7 and there is no need to amend as there is no change in figures. Whose words should I follow now? Please advise.
In my view, you would have to file form 1040X since IRS processed your original 1040 after changing it to married filing separately.
In my view, you would have to file form 1040X since IRS processed your original 1040 after changing it to married filing separately.
hairstyles Tweet. TEST
pappu
09-05 06:08 PM
There is already a big thread (IV spotlight sticky) on this topic. You should get all info from there. Could you try searching else someone else on the forum can help post the link. That should answer all your questions.
abhijitp
01-24 05:19 PM
^^
invincibleasian
02-21 12:26 AM
invincibleasian :
Could you please share your experience with FOIA application for I-140. Did you finally get the copy ?
Also, what all document you need to apply for it ?
I am planning to do that since my employer denied me for getting I-140 copy.
Appreciate your resposne.
Fill out the G-639 form and follow the instructions. Write a covering note clearly indicating the documents yu need and include information like lin numbers etc if available. get it notarized and mail it to the address in the instructions. yu recv a application recvd note within 20 buss days. this contains a number which you can use to track yur request. I am still waiting for my request to be completed since it has been placed on the complex track!
Could you please share your experience with FOIA application for I-140. Did you finally get the copy ?
Also, what all document you need to apply for it ?
I am planning to do that since my employer denied me for getting I-140 copy.
Appreciate your resposne.
Fill out the G-639 form and follow the instructions. Write a covering note clearly indicating the documents yu need and include information like lin numbers etc if available. get it notarized and mail it to the address in the instructions. yu recv a application recvd note within 20 buss days. this contains a number which you can use to track yur request. I am still waiting for my request to be completed since it has been placed on the complex track!
No comments:
Post a Comment