Green.Tech
08-05 05:41 PM
Thanks for the response, folks.
It will be interesting to hear from people who have or are required to sing certain contracts with their employers.
I am assuming the employers logic can be that - "well we were the ones who really paid for your labor cert" and that may be true as far as DOL is concerned. But my logic is if I reimburse you that money a year or two down the line, doesn't that mean that eventually I had to pay for my labor cert :)
I am also interested to know what kind of contracts the employers are having people sign - reimburse us if you leave within a certain time frame (2 or 3 years from when your GC process was initiated by the company) or are the contracts more like - reimburse us full amount no matter when you leave during pending GC process.
It will be interesting to hear from people who have or are required to sing certain contracts with their employers.
I am assuming the employers logic can be that - "well we were the ones who really paid for your labor cert" and that may be true as far as DOL is concerned. But my logic is if I reimburse you that money a year or two down the line, doesn't that mean that eventually I had to pay for my labor cert :)
I am also interested to know what kind of contracts the employers are having people sign - reimburse us if you leave within a certain time frame (2 or 3 years from when your GC process was initiated by the company) or are the contracts more like - reimburse us full amount no matter when you leave during pending GC process.
wallpaper Guns#39;n#39;roses by Jenny at
trramesh
11-09 02:03 PM
All,
Please post this information on other sites to get more people to participate in this survey. The survey ends on Dec 15.
Pappu,
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
Please post this information on other sites to get more people to participate in this survey. The survey ends on Dec 15.
Pappu,
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
canmt
10-19 11:41 AM
The AC 21 does not say anything about the salary part in the Section 106(c). But it is a guideline issued by the Director to USCIS officers on how to interpret AC 21 Section 106(c).
You could find the salary details from www.flcdatacenter.com.
I hope this helps and good luck on your greencard chase.
You could find the salary details from www.flcdatacenter.com.
I hope this helps and good luck on your greencard chase.
2011 Rose star of Guns N Roses
chanduv23
09-10 10:50 AM
Please post your suggest to change H-1B program so that it becomes fair to all. I have started new thread for this purpose.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=162510#post162510
Right now - lets encourage people to join rally
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=162510#post162510
Right now - lets encourage people to join rally
more...
skagitswimmer
June 6th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Thanks. I will go back and reshoot this and experiment a bit. The scene wasn't lit by harsh light - high cloud as I recall. I actually deepended the shadows intentionally in the PS CS2 RAW converter - the original wasn't as contrasty. What is interesting is that while the actual exposure of the blown area should be well within tolerances (If I were still shooting B&W film I would have guessed it at around zone 8) it is just the one colour that is blown - and yellow is not one of the 3 channels so it must have actualy been 2 colours. I will have to keep an eye on my histogram display because I don't have the $ for a 1DSMkII!
rsayed
04-27 08:08 PM
there is no strive in senate....what r they goona debate? I don't think they are going to discuss other than circus if at all they do
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
more...
aamchimumbai
09-04 03:00 AM
I called my Civil Surgeon yesterday and asked her if she was willing to fill out a new I-693 form because it has been changed. Well, she was willing to fill out but said the old data (May 2008) is not valid, precisely TB test/Blood work/Physical exam. I thought it was ridiculous because all she had to do was validate her own results from the last exam. She was open for validating any vaccination records but not her own tests that she conducted.
I really don't want to spend $200/person again for the tests which she has already conducted. Anyways. I guess I'll have to pay her and get the new forms signed.
Is anyone in the same situation?
Thanks
I really don't want to spend $200/person again for the tests which she has already conducted. Anyways. I guess I'll have to pay her and get the new forms signed.
Is anyone in the same situation?
Thanks
2010 quot;new guns n roses lineupquot;,
funny
09-16 02:27 PM
Don't forget to CALL guys..
more...
BharatPremi
07-12 04:34 PM
I believe the only reason EB visa numbers have gone unused in recent years is due to the the inability of FBI in completing namecheck/background check in a timely FIFO fashion. As a result USCIS is unable to approve pending I485s even when the visa numbers are available. This also keeps the VISA BULLETIN doors closed for new I485s.
This (besides labor backlog) spoils the FIFO for GCs.
Fixing FBI security check process will end such visa bulletin fiasco. I believe in recent year or two USCIS has processed various applications (including I485) in a very timely fashion (ofcourse there are exceptions). But many I485s get stuck in the security check bottleneck. Since, visa number is assigned at the approval time the whole FIFO goes to hell.
DOS should be issuing VISA BULLETIN based on pending approvable I485 (meaning security check complete) and fiscal year visa availability. If former is smaller than latter then bulletin dates should move forward based on approved I140s which have not applied for AOS. This is not rocket science but simple math which is lost on DOS, USCIS & FBI.
However, fixing FBI security checks (timely completion) will restore FIFO once labor backlog is gone.
FBI delays is the prime reason for this fiasco.
BTW my AOS is pending due to indefinite background check delay.
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
This (besides labor backlog) spoils the FIFO for GCs.
Fixing FBI security check process will end such visa bulletin fiasco. I believe in recent year or two USCIS has processed various applications (including I485) in a very timely fashion (ofcourse there are exceptions). But many I485s get stuck in the security check bottleneck. Since, visa number is assigned at the approval time the whole FIFO goes to hell.
DOS should be issuing VISA BULLETIN based on pending approvable I485 (meaning security check complete) and fiscal year visa availability. If former is smaller than latter then bulletin dates should move forward based on approved I140s which have not applied for AOS. This is not rocket science but simple math which is lost on DOS, USCIS & FBI.
However, fixing FBI security checks (timely completion) will restore FIFO once labor backlog is gone.
FBI delays is the prime reason for this fiasco.
BTW my AOS is pending due to indefinite background check delay.
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
hair guns n roses tattoos
vinabath
05-15 01:04 PM
What a coincidence.....
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
more money to spend for I-140 and PP
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
more money to spend for I-140 and PP
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
more...
checklaw
07-13 10:44 AM
My EAD and AP were receipted on June 9th from TSC. AP got approved, EAD still pending. So I guess these approvals are random.
Hi Chandu,
A quick question. Did you file AP for some anticipated travel purposes or lawyer's recommendation to simply keep extending AP also? Asking since am a 485 and EAD self filer and am looking at any recommended requirements.
BR
checklaw
Hi Chandu,
A quick question. Did you file AP for some anticipated travel purposes or lawyer's recommendation to simply keep extending AP also? Asking since am a 485 and EAD self filer and am looking at any recommended requirements.
BR
checklaw
hot tattoo Guns N Roses - G N#39;r
kaisersose
02-15 11:18 AM
The mailroom clerks who open mail and process initial information are generally functioning a in a dumbed down mode.
USCIS is aware of their deficiences and hence have provided a solution. For such cases as yours, you should attach a cover letter clearly stating that this case is not to be opened by the mailroom people. It should be addressed to an IO who will do what's necessary.
It appears your lawyer did not do this. So make sure he does it right this time or find a different lawyer. You can also do it yourself by learning the procedure from others who went through the same pains.
USCIS is aware of their deficiences and hence have provided a solution. For such cases as yours, you should attach a cover letter clearly stating that this case is not to be opened by the mailroom people. It should be addressed to an IO who will do what's necessary.
It appears your lawyer did not do this. So make sure he does it right this time or find a different lawyer. You can also do it yourself by learning the procedure from others who went through the same pains.
more...
house Guns #39;n#39; Roses
raj2007
06-21 03:54 AM
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
No you will get all the benefits of I-485 filing lik EAD and AP. Only your 485 processing will suspend till your PD are current again.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
No you will get all the benefits of I-485 filing lik EAD and AP. Only your 485 processing will suspend till your PD are current again.
tattoo Tattoos Roses flowers
sobers
07-14 03:13 PM
Now that Shadegg's SKIL Bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committe...its in the hands of Sensenbrenner.
Shadegg is a top conservative and was supported by Sensenbrenner in his bid for Majority Leader earlier in the year. I found it interesting to read what he said about Shadegg earlier in the year, on the topic of immigration reform. Well, now is Sensenbrenner's chance to act upon it.
========
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060118.html
Sensenbrenner Supports Shadegg for House Majority Leader
(Washington, DC) � Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls, WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, announced that he is supporting John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Majority Leader.
Sensenbrenner said:
�I have given careful thought over the past few weeks on the three exceptional candidates running for Majority Leader and what new direction the Republican Conference needs to go. I have decided to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader.
�John Shadegg, as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, has shown leadership on difficult issues, while building a consensus among the Republican Conference. John is the best choice for Majority Leader. I have worked closely with John for many months now on immigration reform, attending numerous unity dinners that John has held, listening to members throughout the Conference. These proved to be a valuable resource and shows that John Shadegg is the person who can listen and lead us in a new direction.�
Shadegg is a top conservative and was supported by Sensenbrenner in his bid for Majority Leader earlier in the year. I found it interesting to read what he said about Shadegg earlier in the year, on the topic of immigration reform. Well, now is Sensenbrenner's chance to act upon it.
========
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060118.html
Sensenbrenner Supports Shadegg for House Majority Leader
(Washington, DC) � Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls, WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, announced that he is supporting John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Majority Leader.
Sensenbrenner said:
�I have given careful thought over the past few weeks on the three exceptional candidates running for Majority Leader and what new direction the Republican Conference needs to go. I have decided to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader.
�John Shadegg, as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, has shown leadership on difficult issues, while building a consensus among the Republican Conference. John is the best choice for Majority Leader. I have worked closely with John for many months now on immigration reform, attending numerous unity dinners that John has held, listening to members throughout the Conference. These proved to be a valuable resource and shows that John Shadegg is the person who can listen and lead us in a new direction.�
more...
pictures Guns N#39; Roses | Tattoo artist
arrarrgee
07-17 02:39 PM
I second that...Why should there be a link between his req and his contribution? If we are able to answer/clarify whatever doubt he has..probably he would see the value in continuing with the group and probably contribute too...else no first timers would ever wanna join us
can you please help me link the connection between my request and my contribution to IV? I fail to undersand your point!
can you please help me link the connection between my request and my contribution to IV? I fail to undersand your point!
dresses guns n roses my michelle
rock945
02-22 01:36 AM
does anyone know what dates are currently processed for H4 to F1 conversion in CSC. Even though the processing time in website say Nov 20th, i knew of people who applied after that date but received their approvals.. just like to know what the "Real" Current processing dates are ..
thanks
thanks
more...
makeup Slash+guns+n+roses+tattoos
psam
12-15 08:49 PM
I am the same boat. My wife got her card wheras I got a response to the SR we raised that my card was sent the same day as my 485 approval notice and it might been lost in mail. I was asked to file I-90. I called customer service several times and talked to 2nd level IO and all suggested to file I-90. I took infopass but gave a shot again by talking to 2nd level IO who went over my case and said that my card was never created so she raised a SR.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
girlfriend tattoos foot roses on
dealsnet
02-26 01:24 PM
Don't answer to this person. He is started many threads and make funny questions. He is wasting our time. All contradition. See some of his postings below. One question he talks about receiving GC posted to his parents. Another talks about his sister. Admin................Please take care of this guy.!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by nirdlalegcade
yes that's right, what if my sister recieved my GC by mail here in the US while I'm outside the country.. I am planning to use my h4 visa to go out of US..
Today, 01:37 PM
nirdlalegcade
Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
what if
________________________________________
what if my I-485 is July 20, 2007 (it is processing), how long will it take before they can send my GC to me?
01-20 05:08 PM
nirdlalegcade
Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
leaving US without greencard but has H4 visa.
________________________________________
Hi to all. (questions are in BOLD, RED / GREEN words)
Actually, I don't have any idea on this but I just want to ask if I can leave & go back to the US with just my H4 visa? Cause I'm still waiting for my green card cause it's still in process.
My parents are here in the US and the reason why I want to go back to my country is because I want to continue my studies there.
Another question is:
If I go back in my country with just the H4, what if while I'm in my country and my green card is sent in my parents (in US), Can they just send the green card to me and use it if I go back to US?
PLEASE HELP ME.
I appreciate any help. Thank you.
cause i'm kinda desperate. he-he-he.
________________________________________
Last edited by nirdlalegcade : 01-20-2008 at 05:41 PM.
what if my I-485 is July 20, 2007 (it is processing), how long will it take before they can send my GC to me?
Hi one question,,,if I go home to my country to study using H4 while my GC is pending,then suddenly the GC was sent to my sister here in US,can my sister just mail my GC to me in my country so that if i go back here in the US,i can present my GC to the US immigration???uh!im confussed!thanks!
Originally Posted by nirdlalegcade
yes that's right, what if my sister recieved my GC by mail here in the US while I'm outside the country.. I am planning to use my h4 visa to go out of US..
Today, 01:37 PM
nirdlalegcade
Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
what if
________________________________________
what if my I-485 is July 20, 2007 (it is processing), how long will it take before they can send my GC to me?
01-20 05:08 PM
nirdlalegcade
Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
leaving US without greencard but has H4 visa.
________________________________________
Hi to all. (questions are in BOLD, RED / GREEN words)
Actually, I don't have any idea on this but I just want to ask if I can leave & go back to the US with just my H4 visa? Cause I'm still waiting for my green card cause it's still in process.
My parents are here in the US and the reason why I want to go back to my country is because I want to continue my studies there.
Another question is:
If I go back in my country with just the H4, what if while I'm in my country and my green card is sent in my parents (in US), Can they just send the green card to me and use it if I go back to US?
PLEASE HELP ME.
I appreciate any help. Thank you.
cause i'm kinda desperate. he-he-he.
________________________________________
Last edited by nirdlalegcade : 01-20-2008 at 05:41 PM.
what if my I-485 is July 20, 2007 (it is processing), how long will it take before they can send my GC to me?
Hi one question,,,if I go home to my country to study using H4 while my GC is pending,then suddenly the GC was sent to my sister here in US,can my sister just mail my GC to me in my country so that if i go back here in the US,i can present my GC to the US immigration???uh!im confussed!thanks!
hairstyles tattoo Guns n#39; Roses: Axl
jnraajan
01-08 04:57 PM
Thanks Sanjay02.
Another follow-up question.. I'm planning to file for EAD, which passport number should I use in this form ?
If I use new one(which is valid), isn't it in contra with AOS application?
Has anyone faced this situation ?
I used my new passport number and never had any issues. In fact, I also had filed for an H1b extension with the new passport. so, Dont worry
Another follow-up question.. I'm planning to file for EAD, which passport number should I use in this form ?
If I use new one(which is valid), isn't it in contra with AOS application?
Has anyone faced this situation ?
I used my new passport number and never had any issues. In fact, I also had filed for an H1b extension with the new passport. so, Dont worry
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)
my2cents
08-04 03:53 PM
Not True
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment