bigboy007
12-10 02:56 PM
Please consider contributing IV...IV need your help to resolve our immigration problems.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Oh definately no worries i am going to contribute + i have requested 20 of my friends to join IV and participate the funding drive. I am comitted to IV
any more ideas on my question please reg. 140 porting i am not sure .. and if we dont have to intimate USCIS. Help me out
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Oh definately no worries i am going to contribute + i have requested 20 of my friends to join IV and participate the funding drive. I am comitted to IV
any more ideas on my question please reg. 140 porting i am not sure .. and if we dont have to intimate USCIS. Help me out
wallpaper 2008 Bentley GTZ Zagato
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
jayleno
03-11 11:26 AM
Its 100% fraud and abuse. I'm suprised you even thought of asking about this. The answer is in your question.
I worked for an employer in WY 2004 as a physician and since then i resigned and moved onto another job with a new labor and I-140. However last year at the time of July isa bulletin fiasco, I asked my employer from WY in 2004 to file for an I-140 based on the previous approved labor condition in 2004 to retain that priority date under EB -2.
Employer knows I have no intent of joining them after the green card and I have my own practice , so i donot intend to join the practice.
In this scenario, if this considered a misuse of retaining priority date and how do i prove the intent and will the USCIS allow a situation like this?
I worked for an employer in WY 2004 as a physician and since then i resigned and moved onto another job with a new labor and I-140. However last year at the time of July isa bulletin fiasco, I asked my employer from WY in 2004 to file for an I-140 based on the previous approved labor condition in 2004 to retain that priority date under EB -2.
Employer knows I have no intent of joining them after the green card and I have my own practice , so i donot intend to join the practice.
In this scenario, if this considered a misuse of retaining priority date and how do i prove the intent and will the USCIS allow a situation like this?
2011 Wallpaper Technical Design
kirupa
03-27 01:30 AM
gesfox - added :)
more...
DallasBlue
08-23 08:55 PM
I am new here, Could anyone explain what is Texas State Chapter Activation about? how does that work? thanks!
welcome to IV!!
Members from the state chapters carry out local activites at the city/state/regional levels.
This message thread 'Texas State Chapter Activation' is/was created to bring together members from Texas, when the state chapter was activated some time back.
Like explained in the above post, join/subscribe to the Texas State Chapter Yhaoo group and you will hear more from the Texas members about the local activities. Hope to see you in texasiv.
welcome to IV!!
Members from the state chapters carry out local activites at the city/state/regional levels.
This message thread 'Texas State Chapter Activation' is/was created to bring together members from Texas, when the state chapter was activated some time back.
Like explained in the above post, join/subscribe to the Texas State Chapter Yhaoo group and you will hear more from the Texas members about the local activities. Hope to see you in texasiv.
iv_only_hope
02-17 11:00 PM
What abt the other categories which seem to be current 4th 5th religious workers etc. Where will their visas go if they stay current?
more...
sanju
02-05 03:58 PM
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
I guess, thats what Chris was asking :D
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
I guess, thats what Chris was asking :D
2010 Zagato Bentley GTZ is based on
nimb
10-15 11:43 PM
may be not related ... but can someone explain what does this line mean ...
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
probably yes. Recently, I saw number of threads on where AC21 beneficiaries have been asked to submit 'ability to pay' documents from new employer. :(
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
probably yes. Recently, I saw number of threads on where AC21 beneficiaries have been asked to submit 'ability to pay' documents from new employer. :(
more...
asanghi
02-09 12:39 AM
USCIS has been sued by Citizenship hopefuls for a reason which applies to us all. The process took longer time than expected.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/BAG7QO1AN18.DTL
What if we sue USCIS, if not USCIS then some other Fed agency. Least of all, it capture the nation's attention that IV badly needs and make it a mainstream issue just like illegal immigration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/BAG7QO1AN18.DTL
What if we sue USCIS, if not USCIS then some other Fed agency. Least of all, it capture the nation's attention that IV badly needs and make it a mainstream issue just like illegal immigration.
hair Bentley GTZ Zagato Unveiled at
kumar1
07-28 01:18 AM
I have a question, my attorney says that he has filed the application on 2nd July without my signature.
I have not given any authorization also.
I am worried if it is valid or not.
I don't know if they take authorization from my employer or it should be from me.
Please suggest.
v
I have not given any authorization also.
I am worried if it is valid or not.
I don't know if they take authorization from my employer or it should be from me.
Please suggest.
v
more...
fromnaija
12-02 08:14 PM
>>>You cannot transfer to H4, since the 6 year limit is for the "H" category<<<<
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
H4 and H1 times have been decoupled. I believe you could change to H4 even after six years on H1. Check with your lawyer.
So, if you do not want to change to F1, your strategy could be a combination of the following:
start your GC process now, change to H4 if your H1 expires before your I-140 is approved, apply for premium processing of I-140, apply for three year H1 extension after your 140 is approved.
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
H4 and H1 times have been decoupled. I believe you could change to H4 even after six years on H1. Check with your lawyer.
So, if you do not want to change to F1, your strategy could be a combination of the following:
start your GC process now, change to H4 if your H1 expires before your I-140 is approved, apply for premium processing of I-140, apply for three year H1 extension after your 140 is approved.
hot Bentley GTZ zagato concept
a_yaja
04-27 11:47 AM
Get I-140 approved for EB3 case and then swtich to another company and start fresh GC and once you are ready to file I-140 at new company, take this approved I-140 for EB3 and port it.
Hope this helps.
Might be an issue as the EB2 I-140 is already approved. Talk to a good lawyer and see what is the best course of action.
Although it is late now, you should have withdrawn the original LC and refiled in PERM with same PD. That way you would have maintained the original priority date for EB2. Your lawyer must have told you that when you refiled your LC.
Hope this helps.
Might be an issue as the EB2 I-140 is already approved. Talk to a good lawyer and see what is the best course of action.
Although it is late now, you should have withdrawn the original LC and refiled in PERM with same PD. That way you would have maintained the original priority date for EB2. Your lawyer must have told you that when you refiled your LC.
more...
house the Bentley GTZ,
maine_gc
04-20 12:11 PM
So do i need to go to any International airport that has immigration services or the local USCIS office can help?
tattoo 2008 Geneva Auto Show: Zangato
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 Bentley GTZ zagato concept
wait_2010
07-25 02:39 PM
I believe people who suggest that they follow career before GC are right to an extent. But to me the you have to chose..losing freedom to chose ur employer vs losing one career oppoertunity ...If u have GC you can chose from other opportunities and surely there will be plenty..Especially u r close to GC, it might be worth the risk and wait to get GC..even if u get an EAD , it will make life simple for ur wife and urself as she can get a job in any place and any employer and u will have the same option...Nothing beats freedom...
It seems odd that the BIG consulting company wants to use EB3 to tie u for long time as they know the advantage for themselves..Ironical ..rules to protect americans end up hurting them because companies love H1Bs as they can use them as they want...
It seems odd that the BIG consulting company wants to use EB3 to tie u for long time as they know the advantage for themselves..Ironical ..rules to protect americans end up hurting them because companies love H1Bs as they can use them as they want...
dresses 2008 Bentley Zagato GTZ
optimystic
03-19 05:55 PM
May be this is the general process, but I know of a case with RD in June last week and PD in 2003 Mar got approved last Nov/Dec area. It is an EB3 India case.
That would be quite surprising (but not unusual with USCIS :confused: ).
If the case has RD in last week of June then theoretically it had some windows where its PD would have been current
June last week - July 2 and
July 17 - Aug 17th.
But looks like the approval happened in Nov/Dec 07...nowhere near the possible PD current time frames I mentioned above. And also during Nov/Dec 07, EB3- India was 'U' ...so how did the case get adjudicated, and Visa number assigned during that time frame ??? !! One could not even argue that the case got adjudicated and visa assigned during July/Aug timeframes but got stuck for a while before the approval was mailed....'cos its about 3-4 months difference to the time the actual approval was mailed!
Should people who get such unusual approvals be worried that USCIS may realise their mistake later and retract the asssigned Visa numbers and put the case back into adjustment of status mode?? I hope not for the sake of sanity of those people who got the approval !
More the reason for me to get the Infopass in April and hopefully force them to open up my case and look if it can be adjudicated.. :( . I wonder what my company's immigration attorneys would say. They usually do not recommend the applicants directly contacting USCIS.
That would be quite surprising (but not unusual with USCIS :confused: ).
If the case has RD in last week of June then theoretically it had some windows where its PD would have been current
June last week - July 2 and
July 17 - Aug 17th.
But looks like the approval happened in Nov/Dec 07...nowhere near the possible PD current time frames I mentioned above. And also during Nov/Dec 07, EB3- India was 'U' ...so how did the case get adjudicated, and Visa number assigned during that time frame ??? !! One could not even argue that the case got adjudicated and visa assigned during July/Aug timeframes but got stuck for a while before the approval was mailed....'cos its about 3-4 months difference to the time the actual approval was mailed!
Should people who get such unusual approvals be worried that USCIS may realise their mistake later and retract the asssigned Visa numbers and put the case back into adjustment of status mode?? I hope not for the sake of sanity of those people who got the approval !
More the reason for me to get the Infopass in April and hopefully force them to open up my case and look if it can be adjudicated.. :( . I wonder what my company's immigration attorneys would say. They usually do not recommend the applicants directly contacting USCIS.
more...
makeup Bentley GTZ Zagato Motor Show
guygeek007
07-26 09:41 AM
Lapisguy,
You can file for 485 concurrently while your 140 application is pending. Your attorney should be advising you accordingly.
You can file for 485 concurrently while your 140 application is pending. Your attorney should be advising you accordingly.
girlfriend Bentley GTZ от Zagato Фото
xu1
08-15 09:55 AM
I am not sure whether to go for EB2 filing in PERM or wait one more year to file i485 (hope PD will reach 2003 september by next year october ). Even if i start EB2 perm now it's going to take at least one year to clear labor and i140 (if every thing smooth).
It should be worth it, because you didn't indicate the company would revoke your eb3+I140 approval.. Why not give it a try?
And if you start EB2 perm now, if everything's smooth, you may be cleared within 6-7 months (say, premium I140 is allowed for Eb2 then)
It should be worth it, because you didn't indicate the company would revoke your eb3+I140 approval.. Why not give it a try?
And if you start EB2 perm now, if everything's smooth, you may be cleared within 6-7 months (say, premium I140 is allowed for Eb2 then)
hairstyles Bentley Zagato GT
satyasaich
10-03 12:36 PM
Even PA DMV also adopted more troublesome procedure of giving DL to the LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Even after having VALID EAD DOCUMENT, verifying ORIGINAL USCIS documents and ORIGINAL SOCIAL SECURITY CARD why DMV want to check status with USCIS again?
What do they get out of that process?? Seems like another way of harassing LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Why redundant procedures???... Why to waste tax payers money with these kinds of redundant policies??
Why individual states like PA, GA and SC adopting these policies??
Please share your experiences from other states if any similar sort.
Same is the case with Missouri. Earlier in one of the DMVs ( in the same city of St.louis) one official just bluntly denied to consider a valid EAD card, where as 5 miles on the otherside of city, same day, same deparment issued a paper License and sent all the copies of 'Oroginal' documents such as EAD card, SS Card to USCIS for "verification"
my personal opinion is not that they are trying to harass, but rather lack of proper directions
Even after having VALID EAD DOCUMENT, verifying ORIGINAL USCIS documents and ORIGINAL SOCIAL SECURITY CARD why DMV want to check status with USCIS again?
What do they get out of that process?? Seems like another way of harassing LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Why redundant procedures???... Why to waste tax payers money with these kinds of redundant policies??
Why individual states like PA, GA and SC adopting these policies??
Please share your experiences from other states if any similar sort.
Same is the case with Missouri. Earlier in one of the DMVs ( in the same city of St.louis) one official just bluntly denied to consider a valid EAD card, where as 5 miles on the otherside of city, same day, same deparment issued a paper License and sent all the copies of 'Oroginal' documents such as EAD card, SS Card to USCIS for "verification"
my personal opinion is not that they are trying to harass, but rather lack of proper directions
bmoni
01-28 06:28 PM
First thing, call one of the high powered attorneys discuss with them what options you have.
I think there is a recent court ruling that will favor you in fighting the USCIS decisions.
This is the first time we're (I'm) seeing such a denial notice related to the recent memo. So who ever thinks this is just a memo or USCIS reiterating existing rules. Rethink your stand. I'm sure more people will wake up soon.
Keep up the hope. Don't wait if possible try to apply for another new H1B.
Thanks for posting the denial notice. I feel your pain. Again don't lose your hope keep up the fight. If you hear any updates please do post them.
I think there is a recent court ruling that will favor you in fighting the USCIS decisions.
This is the first time we're (I'm) seeing such a denial notice related to the recent memo. So who ever thinks this is just a memo or USCIS reiterating existing rules. Rethink your stand. I'm sure more people will wake up soon.
Keep up the hope. Don't wait if possible try to apply for another new H1B.
Thanks for posting the denial notice. I feel your pain. Again don't lose your hope keep up the fight. If you hear any updates please do post them.
onemorecame
07-25 11:45 AM
Here is the calculation I came up with USCIS processing of our I-485 applications.
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
Good Calculation
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
Good Calculation
No comments:
Post a Comment