knowDOL
05-19 02:18 PM
I have not heard of anyone filing I485 without notifying the sponsoring employer and if it is feasible to do like that. however, there is nothing wrong in finding the I485 form in uscis.gov website and read through the info. May be you will get some idea on what you want to get it done is something possible or not. good luck. Think coolly. have some coffee or mint.
wallpaper Win, funny baby, evil,
dealsnet
06-14 03:53 PM
Living in outside India, we need to learn much caution.
This is a true incident happened in NY.
A boy from south India came to NY by family immigration sponsored by his uncle. He came after his 10th grade exam. Living in uncle's house. After few days in US, he played ball with some kids in the street. Ball strayed into somebody's garden. He went to pick the ball, and then he thought about taking permission from the house owner. He didn't ring the bell, just went inside the house, where he find a girl sitting in a sofa. She is a teenager alone in her home at that time. As soon as she saw this dark colored boy, she screamed and ran outside the house. He saw she is screaming, he also ran outside. All these sound make the neighbors attention and some one call 911 and police arrested this boy for attempted rape. He served 6 months in prison. Rape charge is rejected with a plea bargain for trespassing, all because he is minor 15 years old.
So need to change the behavior with socializing in this country.
Well just to get away a bit from the complications of immigration!
Either the victim (who lost jwelery) has some animosity to you/family/your sister or your sister by her actions has given him/her reason to suspect her for the lost jwelery. Maybe your sister might have been a frequent visitor to that house? Or the jwelery was lost immediately after your sisters visit? First identify what prompted this accusation and then tackle it. Ofcourse consult a good attorney.
Even if the person acuses your sister, she is inocent until proven guilty and unless there is sufficient evidence there is no way your sister will be convicted by any judge/jury.
Lesson to learn; Don't get tooooooooo close to anybody. Helping is good but even with your relatives you have keep a certain distance and respect their privacy and territory. Indians tend to overlook this and often asume that they can enter into other people's lives, think for them and act for them. Its ok in India but once you are here things change quite a bit.......:o:o
This is a true incident happened in NY.
A boy from south India came to NY by family immigration sponsored by his uncle. He came after his 10th grade exam. Living in uncle's house. After few days in US, he played ball with some kids in the street. Ball strayed into somebody's garden. He went to pick the ball, and then he thought about taking permission from the house owner. He didn't ring the bell, just went inside the house, where he find a girl sitting in a sofa. She is a teenager alone in her home at that time. As soon as she saw this dark colored boy, she screamed and ran outside the house. He saw she is screaming, he also ran outside. All these sound make the neighbors attention and some one call 911 and police arrested this boy for attempted rape. He served 6 months in prison. Rape charge is rejected with a plea bargain for trespassing, all because he is minor 15 years old.
So need to change the behavior with socializing in this country.
Well just to get away a bit from the complications of immigration!
Either the victim (who lost jwelery) has some animosity to you/family/your sister or your sister by her actions has given him/her reason to suspect her for the lost jwelery. Maybe your sister might have been a frequent visitor to that house? Or the jwelery was lost immediately after your sisters visit? First identify what prompted this accusation and then tackle it. Ofcourse consult a good attorney.
Even if the person acuses your sister, she is inocent until proven guilty and unless there is sufficient evidence there is no way your sister will be convicted by any judge/jury.
Lesson to learn; Don't get tooooooooo close to anybody. Helping is good but even with your relatives you have keep a certain distance and respect their privacy and territory. Indians tend to overlook this and often asume that they can enter into other people's lives, think for them and act for them. Its ok in India but once you are here things change quite a bit.......:o:o
keerthi
07-14 08:32 AM
Hello Ruben,
I have forwarded my employer's email to you. Also, I have sent it through this forum's private messaging. Please check and let me know.
Thanks.
I have forwarded my employer's email to you. Also, I have sent it through this forum's private messaging. Please check and let me know.
Thanks.
2011 quot;you funny kid! you tell funny
forever_waiting
01-06 02:21 PM
It has happened several times in the past when a members thought a certain bill had a lot of scope...then started advocating on the forums for IV to take up the cause and start lobbying for it...and if it didnt work out or no one showed interest, IV core team ended up receiving brickbats that they never put in the neccessary efforts. This is just a fact.
The advocacy and lobbying for any bill doesnt follow the "top-down" but the "bottom-up" approach. IV can coordnate lobbying and advocacy at the national level but requires our members across the country to meet with their lawmakers to get specific responses on whether they will support that bill.
IV usually lobbies or works on bills that seem to have some traction in Congress. If members are very sure that there are other bills that should be focussed on - they should gather together the numbers (i.e. members who think this will help), meet with lawmakers in their districts - try to find co-sponsors for the bills. Then, if truly a momentum exists - the IV core team can step in and help with additional lobbying.
I have met 3 congressmen in my area - one is an anti-immig and the other two fully support EB legislation but at this point are judging the climate in the new Congress.
As another member stated IV is "me and you". And the bottomline is asking IV to take up a cause is not the right approach. Advocacy and the momentum has to be started by the members.
The advocacy and lobbying for any bill doesnt follow the "top-down" but the "bottom-up" approach. IV can coordnate lobbying and advocacy at the national level but requires our members across the country to meet with their lawmakers to get specific responses on whether they will support that bill.
IV usually lobbies or works on bills that seem to have some traction in Congress. If members are very sure that there are other bills that should be focussed on - they should gather together the numbers (i.e. members who think this will help), meet with lawmakers in their districts - try to find co-sponsors for the bills. Then, if truly a momentum exists - the IV core team can step in and help with additional lobbying.
I have met 3 congressmen in my area - one is an anti-immig and the other two fully support EB legislation but at this point are judging the climate in the new Congress.
As another member stated IV is "me and you". And the bottomline is asking IV to take up a cause is not the right approach. Advocacy and the momentum has to be started by the members.
more...
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
Danko
11-27 03:46 AM
Honestly, what does it even matter if it is MS biased? He works at MS, and has every right to focus on that content. :P
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
more...
gc_on_demand
01-20 11:08 AM
CIR was impossible all along. It was delusional to think such a political hot potato can pass.
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
2010 A MISCHIEVOUS KID ON THE
styrum
02-18 12:22 PM
I can't recall Democratic senators helping LEGAL immigrants during the CIR debate last year!
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the only amendment favorable for us.
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the only amendment favorable for us.
more...
morchu
04-21 01:40 PM
Wrong.
H1B has nothing to do with an AOS. AOS has its own requirements, and having an H1B or even being "employed" at the time, is not a requirement for AOS.
So "brick2006", theoreticaly can file for AOS, even when he is in H4.
-Morchu
....To file AOS once PD is current, it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
H1B has nothing to do with an AOS. AOS has its own requirements, and having an H1B or even being "employed" at the time, is not a requirement for AOS.
So "brick2006", theoreticaly can file for AOS, even when he is in H4.
-Morchu
....To file AOS once PD is current, it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
hair funny pictures the fat alf kid
ashkam
04-04 02:05 PM
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
Why do you have to wait for your wife to be on F1 before changing to EAD? Even if you use your EAD now, she will still be in valid AOS status.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
Why do you have to wait for your wife to be on F1 before changing to EAD? Even if you use your EAD now, she will still be in valid AOS status.
more...
franklin
02-09 01:01 AM
emailed the reporter to thank him of his support and give him more info on IV and their efforts and details on the IV agenda.
I also emailed moveon.org, and asked for their help
I also emailed moveon.org, and asked for their help
hot Funny Baby with Drink
gcseeker2002
08-14 02:24 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
more...
house Funny Kid FAIL Picture
puskeygadha
05-22 11:42 AM
After labor is approved do we need hardcopy of labor to file
I140 and 1485..OR ELECTRONIC RECEIT WILL DO
tHANKS
I140 and 1485..OR ELECTRONIC RECEIT WILL DO
tHANKS
tattoo funny kid and horse
immigrant2007
09-13 12:30 PM
EB2 and EB3 at one point were in the same boat. Now that EB2 is advancing and is way ahead of EB3, the EB3 applicants are upset and angry. Their anger is very much justified. However, their anger should not be directed towards EB2 applicants.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
I agree and plead to everyone (I really beg to everyone of you please do not fight) lets support each other. Someone is going to get GC earlier than others. Lets not feel bad about it. And I request everyone in EB2 and EB1 to support all backlogs victims.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
I agree and plead to everyone (I really beg to everyone of you please do not fight) lets support each other. Someone is going to get GC earlier than others. Lets not feel bad about it. And I request everyone in EB2 and EB1 to support all backlogs victims.
more...
pictures Funny Kid Ogling
chanduv23
06-29 09:34 PM
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
Well "interview" without PD becoming current is a part of "preadjudication" process. Thats why you see those denials, RFEs and interview notices.
Typically once preadjudication is done - it means the next thing is "wait for visa number". Once visa number is available a final review is done by a officer.
In other words "preadjudicated" means "approvable"
Well "interview" without PD becoming current is a part of "preadjudication" process. Thats why you see those denials, RFEs and interview notices.
Typically once preadjudication is done - it means the next thing is "wait for visa number". Once visa number is available a final review is done by a officer.
In other words "preadjudicated" means "approvable"
dresses funny-kid-tells-joke-to-dog.
va2000
10-10 09:30 AM
My lawyer told me that using EAD will not effected H4 status . It is good to get extensions on H4 along with H1 even you use your EAD to be safer side if some thing wrong with 485
more...
makeup funny kid pictures.
Blog Feeds
01-27 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)
girlfriend strange - funny kid
glamzon
08-21 11:13 AM
Congrats
hairstyles funny-kid.jpg
doknek
09-04 11:27 AM
Yes, if lawyer/employer creates an account for employee OR gives employee username/password to access the system
youngindia
06-08 01:27 AM
Its not abt H1-B abuse, its abt the way it was brought up. Instead of looking into his own house (USCIS and DOL) Sen.Durbin held Indian companies responsible and almost started bashing them. Little did he anticipate that they will come back in this way.
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
bfadlia
02-23 01:57 PM
my case was recieved Dec 07. (H1B extension)
The website says they're processing Dec 21
However checking my case status, it still says received and pending
How come?
The website says they're processing Dec 21
However checking my case status, it still says received and pending
How come?
No comments:
Post a Comment