mpadapa
10-09 12:56 PM
Please provide additional details regarding U'r labor like EB1/2/3
GC approval process is a long process, U just started U'rs. I don't understand whatz the panic..
Pleaseprovide appropriate titles when U create a thread...
I came to the USA on 3rd November, 2006 in company A. I did not work a single day in company A. I joined to company B on 17th January, 2007. I have no idea how my employer filed my H1B in company B without any paystub. I joined to company C on 24th July as they started my GC process right away. My H1B with company B and C are still pending. Company C has filed my labor on 31st August and got approval on 11th September. I am planning to file I-140, I-485, I-765 and I-131 together. So my questions are:
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
GC approval process is a long process, U just started U'rs. I don't understand whatz the panic..
Pleaseprovide appropriate titles when U create a thread...
I came to the USA on 3rd November, 2006 in company A. I did not work a single day in company A. I joined to company B on 17th January, 2007. I have no idea how my employer filed my H1B in company B without any paystub. I joined to company C on 24th July as they started my GC process right away. My H1B with company B and C are still pending. Company C has filed my labor on 31st August and got approval on 11th September. I am planning to file I-140, I-485, I-765 and I-131 together. So my questions are:
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
wallpaper maternity elly band
satyasaich
08-28 08:36 AM
to tell you the truth, DO NOT make silly statements at all. like someone said in this forum, we ARE professionals and dignified individuals with a wide array of qualifications by virtue of which WE are doing jobs in this country. some of us are here working for more than 8 years, some others may be 3 years, some others may have just begun.
Don't waste your time.if this country wants to loose wizards like who created hotmail or google, please let your lawmakers know that. and let me know the response you get.
I hope you all boycot the work and do a rally. That will help those Americans replaced by you, to finally get their job back. Or even better that will help the millions of tech workers in India, who wants to get your job, a chance. So go for it.
Don't waste your time.if this country wants to loose wizards like who created hotmail or google, please let your lawmakers know that. and let me know the response you get.
I hope you all boycot the work and do a rally. That will help those Americans replaced by you, to finally get their job back. Or even better that will help the millions of tech workers in India, who wants to get your job, a chance. So go for it.
tampacoolie
07-09 12:46 PM
Upgraded to PP on 06/27 and received RFE on 07/06 ability to pay.
2011 1 month pregnancy belly
Desichakit
08-15 05:43 AM
Good you are online
more...
voldemar
06-22 11:14 AM
Due to time contraints doctor sent me for a chest x-ray and skipped the TB skin test. Chest x-ray came back negative. Question: Is a TB skin test required if a chest x-ray is negative? No remarks were made as to why TB skin test was not given. Should suggest, to a reasonable person, that no active TB is presentI've got a RFE because of that. Now got TB skin test and will do X-Ray again if TB will be positive.
gc_on_demand
01-20 11:08 AM
CIR was impossible all along. It was delusional to think such a political hot potato can pass.
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
more...
GooblyWoobly
07-18 07:00 PM
read the last paragraph of the link you posted
Adjustment applications and ancillary benefits – The new application fee for an I-485 is a package fee that includes associated EAD and advance parole applications. Thus, if you file an I-485 with the fee listed above, while you will still need to submit applications for an EAD and advance parole, you will not need to pay a separate fee so long as your adjustment application is pending. However, if you filed your I-485 before this fee change, to apply for or renew your EAD or advance parole, you must file a new application with the new fee for those applications.
Thanks. Clear as day!! This sucks.
This meand all the people here filing in July will have to shell out 340$ for EAD and 305$ for AP each year.
Can someone answer Q2?
Adjustment applications and ancillary benefits – The new application fee for an I-485 is a package fee that includes associated EAD and advance parole applications. Thus, if you file an I-485 with the fee listed above, while you will still need to submit applications for an EAD and advance parole, you will not need to pay a separate fee so long as your adjustment application is pending. However, if you filed your I-485 before this fee change, to apply for or renew your EAD or advance parole, you must file a new application with the new fee for those applications.
Thanks. Clear as day!! This sucks.
This meand all the people here filing in July will have to shell out 340$ for EAD and 305$ for AP each year.
Can someone answer Q2?
2010 Look atattention all stages of
alterego
04-11 04:59 PM
I would definitely be cautious about the plan you have mentioned. Here is the reason. You applied as an attending/practicing hospitalist through labor for a future job offer and you are moving into a trainee position. Should you be called for an interview or get a RFE at the AOS stage(not that uncommon nowadays), you would have to demonstrate how it is that doing an oncology fellowship better qualifies you to be a future hospitalist. That would be difficult. You could take a chance and get away but know that you will be taking one.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
more...
agupta_13
04-22 07:32 PM
I am employeed in IT consultancy, and wants to change my employement as a permenent employee of the client.
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor�s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client�s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant�s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week�s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor�s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client�s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant�s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week�s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
hair the final price of your elly.
komaragiri
08-01 01:16 PM
As soon the 2008 quota opens on October 1st, they will process the current limit within a month and starting from November they can post "U" every category until Sep 15th, 2008.
They can enjoy Christmas holidays peacefully.
They can enjoy Christmas holidays peacefully.
more...
ramanujan
03-15 10:53 AM
Folks,
Sen. Specter's immigration bill has no provisions for filing of EAD/I-485 even with priority dates retrogressed. It appears that none of the amendments are proposing that this provision be added to the final bill.
Is there something we can do to get this provision added to the bill? Can QGA help in anyway to get it added? I think that the ability to file EAD/I-485 under retrogression will benefit one and all.
-Ramanujan
Sen. Specter's immigration bill has no provisions for filing of EAD/I-485 even with priority dates retrogressed. It appears that none of the amendments are proposing that this provision be added to the final bill.
Is there something we can do to get this provision added to the bill? Can QGA help in anyway to get it added? I think that the ability to file EAD/I-485 under retrogression will benefit one and all.
-Ramanujan
hot 18 Weeks - Fourth Pregnancy
gc28262
07-16 06:44 PM
If you have an appointment letter and a relieving letter from your past employer, that should prove that you worked for that employer.
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
house 15 weeks Pregnant
vik352
12-08 03:19 PM
Thanks ashkam. I am still on H1, this is exactly what I needed to hear. I will confirm this with my attorney too. Thanks again!
According to my attorney, if you are in valid H1 status, your wife can get her H4 stamped, reenter on an H4 and still maintain her GC application. Once she comes back, she can go back to work on her EAD and transition into I-485 pending status.
According to my attorney, if you are in valid H1 status, your wife can get her H4 stamped, reenter on an H4 and still maintain her GC application. Once she comes back, she can go back to work on her EAD and transition into I-485 pending status.
tattoo up for it,pregnant belly
sparky123
07-18 01:12 PM
Any ideas to help speeden up the PERM processing in Atlanta center?
Hundreds of folks are stuck for more than 150 days and are in a critical situation now.
Please help us with ur suggestions...
Hundreds of folks are stuck for more than 150 days and are in a critical situation now.
Please help us with ur suggestions...
more...
pictures Pregnant belly casting is
gc28262
04-12 12:45 AM
Since his denial was on March 31st, would the overstay clock starts from March 31st or from original I-94 expiry date? My understanding was that one can work legally using H1B receipt notice. Hence, OP was legal atleast till March 31st, 2009, correct?
-GCisaDawg
Yes OP was in legal status till Mar 31st. ( One is in status while H1B is pending)
-GCisaDawg
Yes OP was in legal status till Mar 31st. ( One is in status while H1B is pending)
dresses In the early stages of her
Dhundhun
11-18 12:52 PM
I have heard that your FP/biometrics does not have anything to with EAD.
USCIS has its own guideline of issuing EAD within 90 days. Since there was heavy work load after July, they issued without FP. For the EADs issued without FP, they are re-issuing EAD with FP.:)
USCIS has its own guideline of issuing EAD within 90 days. Since there was heavy work load after July, they issued without FP. For the EADs issued without FP, they are re-issuing EAD with FP.:)
more...
makeup That#39;s because pregnancy weeks
poorslumdog
03-28 01:11 PM
Yesterday, I went for my H1b stamping but was issued a 221G. I had all documents that the VO asked for.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
Have you ever participated any of the IV's campaign on various issues. Have you ever volunteered your time or donated money.
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
Have you ever participated any of the IV's campaign on various issues. Have you ever volunteered your time or donated money.
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
girlfriend 25 Weeks - Pregnancy Photos
rkg000
04-21 10:09 AM
Friends,
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
We moved to Houston (Sugar Land) last year from NJ. Liked this place a lot. I liked Sugar Land as anything you need is at stone's throw distance. Didn't contemplate other suburbs as this was the closest to our work place.
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
We moved to Houston (Sugar Land) last year from NJ. Liked this place a lot. I liked Sugar Land as anything you need is at stone's throw distance. Didn't contemplate other suburbs as this was the closest to our work place.
hairstyles About Pregnancy amp; Belly Button
GCwaitforever
08-15 10:58 AM
I am from India having masters in engineering and i have 9 years IT experience. Ofcourse my Lawyer filed in EB3 (in 2003) thinking that PD will be current in future. Now i140 cleared in EB3 . What next? Since i am in consulting company i don't have any problem sticking to company. Only problem is maintaining status. As long as i am in job no problem. Who knows market will be like this. I am just re thinking to go for EB2 filing. But not sure how many were able to clear Eb2 in PERM.How much salary required ? (My company located in Detroit).
See this and if it helps you courtesy Murthy.com (http://murthy.com/news/n_tscnsc.html)
Second I-140 Allowed without Revocation of Earlier I-140 Petition
The TSC confirmed that, in some cases it is possible for the employer to file two or more I-140 petitions for the same beneficiary, based on a single labor certification, in multiple EB categories. If the job requirements are proper for EB2, the case could be filed in either category. Thus, multiple I-140s could be filed in some cases. If the first was filed in EB3, there would be no need to withdraw it in order to file in EB2. The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition.
This could be quite helpful in situations where the I-140 petition is incorrectly filed in the wrong, lower category. We do hear about such instances from time to time. It seems that if the I-140 was filed in EB3, but the case would meet EB2, the TSC would permit the re-filing of the I-140 petition without revocation of the earlier EB3 filing.
See this and if it helps you courtesy Murthy.com (http://murthy.com/news/n_tscnsc.html)
Second I-140 Allowed without Revocation of Earlier I-140 Petition
The TSC confirmed that, in some cases it is possible for the employer to file two or more I-140 petitions for the same beneficiary, based on a single labor certification, in multiple EB categories. If the job requirements are proper for EB2, the case could be filed in either category. Thus, multiple I-140s could be filed in some cases. If the first was filed in EB3, there would be no need to withdraw it in order to file in EB2. The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition.
This could be quite helpful in situations where the I-140 petition is incorrectly filed in the wrong, lower category. We do hear about such instances from time to time. It seems that if the I-140 was filed in EB3, but the case would meet EB2, the TSC would permit the re-filing of the I-140 petition without revocation of the earlier EB3 filing.
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)
mbartosik
11-09 05:42 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7087846.stm
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment