Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
wallpaper Marc Ecko The King E16533G1
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.
unseenguy
06-16 02:16 AM
Thank you so much for all your advice. I will let them know immediately. However, I have one more question. Is it better to apply the visa from a computer in Indonesia compare to I help them apply from my computer in the US or it really doesn't matter? I'm not sure if the embassy tracks IP address or probably has something against it. Just a thought because we're very careful not to mess it up.
If you prepare the application, you should sign as preparer and they as applicant. If they prepare it, only they need to sign.
If you prepare the application, you should sign as preparer and they as applicant. If they prepare it, only they need to sign.
2011 red by marc ecko Women#39;s
mchundi
05-17 08:40 PM
Mchundi,
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
Thanks,
I am not even sure if this bill is good for me. (I am EB-2 2003 PD, I140 approved, India, 8th Year H1-B). I am sure this is good for people who r just stepping into the process.
I know u guys r doing a good job shuttling between work and D.C. This is the closest we have ever come with the lawmakers (that i know). If only we had this cohesion during S-1932 days we would have got something. Hope it works out well for us.
--MC
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
Thanks,
I am not even sure if this bill is good for me. (I am EB-2 2003 PD, I140 approved, India, 8th Year H1-B). I am sure this is good for people who r just stepping into the process.
I know u guys r doing a good job shuttling between work and D.C. This is the closest we have ever come with the lawmakers (that i know). If only we had this cohesion during S-1932 days we would have got something. Hope it works out well for us.
--MC
more...
eb3_nepa
04-16 11:21 PM
Dont the bill have to be placed in federal register after the Prez signs it, for 90 days for it to be law? I remember so from the PERM regulation timeline.
Do you have any kind of documentation or a Link for this by any chance?
Do you have any kind of documentation or a Link for this by any chance?
vinzak
01-20 04:14 PM
I have observed that typically after becoming great, have a tendency to hide his/her EB3 roots. I mean, who'll hire you as a CEO or rocket scientist if they knew you used to be an EB3.
Obama's father was a Kenyan EB3, but Obama insists his father was an EB2. The labor certification that the white house has put out for Barack Obama is clearly a fake.
It's sad but true, America still judges you not by the content of your character but the color of your labor certification.
I propose that EB3s append "EB3" to their name (like Ganesh Teesravarg ME(Comp Sci.), EB3) so that they get more visibility, and ppl realize they live among us, and with some help can actually be productive members of society.
Obama's father was a Kenyan EB3, but Obama insists his father was an EB2. The labor certification that the white house has put out for Barack Obama is clearly a fake.
It's sad but true, America still judges you not by the content of your character but the color of your labor certification.
I propose that EB3s append "EB3" to their name (like Ganesh Teesravarg ME(Comp Sci.), EB3) so that they get more visibility, and ppl realize they live among us, and with some help can actually be productive members of society.
more...
chanduv23
04-27 10:44 PM
No TSC is not. TSC goes by priority date and not processing date. TSC I have seen follows different processing style. For e.g. if your namecheck/security check or some kind of check is pending they dont send you FP notice. Also they process applications if your PD is current/close to recent bulletin.
This is your own theory.
In reality there is no consistency.
This is your own theory.
In reality there is no consistency.
2010 Marc Ecko Collection Men
immique
04-13 01:38 AM
it is very risky. you cannot use AC 21 when you move from a full time practising physician to fellowship. how can you justify being paid about 1/3rd of the salary mentioned in your Labor application. the job has to be similar in description and pay. earning extra by moonlighting will not be sufficient to satisfy the criteria. personally I have known Physicians who did not even move from a University hospital to a community hospital as the job description will be different from a University hospital to a community hospital. if you have green card processing through your wife then you can file as her dependent and go for the fellowship. if you don't have that option, then I would suggest that you not go for the fellowship and stick with your current job.
more...
sandy_anand
11-06 04:38 PM
I did not want to start a new thread for this. But I had earlier last month contacted many senators with the official I-485 pending inventory as proof and asking them whether it was humane, ethical and moral to ask someone wait more than 15 years for a green card! And what they are doing to remedy the situation.
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
Thanks for posting this information! Gave you green!:D
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
Thanks for posting this information! Gave you green!:D
hair Marc Ecko
India_USA
10-05 10:46 AM
my wife doesnt have EAD or H4. she has AP only which expires in mar 2011 and so does AP stamp on her i94.
she got license valid only till mar 2011.
less than 6 months for $48.
she sent an email to customer service and this is the reply she got
If you have a pending I-485 filed under derivative status of your husband you must be included in his I-140 petition. Is there some paperwork you filed to have you added under his I-140 after you married him? If not other option is to show that you have applied to extend your H4 status after march 2011 eg. I-539. You can get a driver license (if you have not already got one) till your current I94 is valid and then when you apply for an extension you can show the receipt notice and renew for a year or show us a valid EAD card.
i dont have my 140 app and i dont remember getting her name added in 140. and i dont have H1 so no H4 option. so the only option left for here is filing her EAD. cause i dont know if they will extend it on AP alone with expired I94.
Never knew that spouse had to be included in the I-140 stage... Is this a new rule?
she got license valid only till mar 2011.
less than 6 months for $48.
she sent an email to customer service and this is the reply she got
If you have a pending I-485 filed under derivative status of your husband you must be included in his I-140 petition. Is there some paperwork you filed to have you added under his I-140 after you married him? If not other option is to show that you have applied to extend your H4 status after march 2011 eg. I-539. You can get a driver license (if you have not already got one) till your current I94 is valid and then when you apply for an extension you can show the receipt notice and renew for a year or show us a valid EAD card.
i dont have my 140 app and i dont remember getting her name added in 140. and i dont have H1 so no H4 option. so the only option left for here is filing her EAD. cause i dont know if they will extend it on AP alone with expired I94.
Never knew that spouse had to be included in the I-140 stage... Is this a new rule?
more...
GCPagla
03-15 10:16 PM
hi,
Thanks for your reply. But how is it possible to get a word to word match in job description in an offer letter? When you get a job the new company words for the offer letter. As your job will be similar you will have common words like "develop", "analyze" "test" etc. But how the whole thing matches word to word. Is it possible to request the new employer to phrase the offer letter as per you LC description? Can they entertain such request?
I would appreciate if anyone who invoked Ac21 can help
Thanks for your reply. But how is it possible to get a word to word match in job description in an offer letter? When you get a job the new company words for the offer letter. As your job will be similar you will have common words like "develop", "analyze" "test" etc. But how the whole thing matches word to word. Is it possible to request the new employer to phrase the offer letter as per you LC description? Can they entertain such request?
I would appreciate if anyone who invoked Ac21 can help
hot and buy Marc Ecko Men#39;s
hopefulgc
05-12 02:45 PM
We need to raise a million $. Anything less is seeming to just not cut it.
Look where we are now with our half-hearted efforts.
DOS says that EB3 would be retrogressed for the remaining part of the year. There was a time I used to believe that come year 2008, there is no way EB3 would be at 2001. I was wrong.
Today I think, there is no way the dates would be at 2002 come 2011.... but guess what.. its a definite possibility.
We need to do something substantial. We must equip IV with huge funds .. funds that will get us in bed with the right people.
--- here is what follows from an earlier post
Even though we have a very honest agenda at heart which at its very core aims to help America be more competitive in the global scene, apparently, we need to have the financial clout to be able to turn heads and thus have our voices heard.
Here is an idea: say we have roughly 500 members out of this vast array of 35000+ members who have the heart and the will to contribute. we get $2000 from each and place it in an escrow trust account that does not release money for expenditure unless we reach $1 mln
why? because the first 10 or 50 contributers are the most elemental in getting such a campaign off the ground and we need to give them a guarantee that its an ALL or NOTHING DEAL. If for some reason we stop at $10k because only 5 members contributed and no more are ready to contribute (unlikely), those 5 members can get their money back.
now is $2000 a huge amount?.. absolutely... but maybe we could tweak this amount or do some payback if we have more people stepping forward in excess of 500. and the amount of payback depends on how early your contributed to the campaign. The first 50 guys could even get a substantial part of their contribution back.
People, we gotta swing for the fences, the next time we go to play.
It has taken us some time to understand how the lobbying game is played.. but this time "Lets play to win"
We need to be a big fish.. a million $+ whale to be taken seriously.
Lastly, i'm just presenting an idea .. its not endorsed by IV core.. and I maybe overlooking some finer points of non-profit corporate taxation and finance.
funding drive is here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18790
Brethren.... rise!
Look where we are now with our half-hearted efforts.
DOS says that EB3 would be retrogressed for the remaining part of the year. There was a time I used to believe that come year 2008, there is no way EB3 would be at 2001. I was wrong.
Today I think, there is no way the dates would be at 2002 come 2011.... but guess what.. its a definite possibility.
We need to do something substantial. We must equip IV with huge funds .. funds that will get us in bed with the right people.
--- here is what follows from an earlier post
Even though we have a very honest agenda at heart which at its very core aims to help America be more competitive in the global scene, apparently, we need to have the financial clout to be able to turn heads and thus have our voices heard.
Here is an idea: say we have roughly 500 members out of this vast array of 35000+ members who have the heart and the will to contribute. we get $2000 from each and place it in an escrow trust account that does not release money for expenditure unless we reach $1 mln
why? because the first 10 or 50 contributers are the most elemental in getting such a campaign off the ground and we need to give them a guarantee that its an ALL or NOTHING DEAL. If for some reason we stop at $10k because only 5 members contributed and no more are ready to contribute (unlikely), those 5 members can get their money back.
now is $2000 a huge amount?.. absolutely... but maybe we could tweak this amount or do some payback if we have more people stepping forward in excess of 500. and the amount of payback depends on how early your contributed to the campaign. The first 50 guys could even get a substantial part of their contribution back.
People, we gotta swing for the fences, the next time we go to play.
It has taken us some time to understand how the lobbying game is played.. but this time "Lets play to win"
We need to be a big fish.. a million $+ whale to be taken seriously.
Lastly, i'm just presenting an idea .. its not endorsed by IV core.. and I maybe overlooking some finer points of non-profit corporate taxation and finance.
funding drive is here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18790
Brethren.... rise!
more...
house Marc Ecko Collection Jaxy
nomi
12-08 08:20 AM
DEAR FRIENDS OF AMERICAN PROGRAMMERS, ENGINEERS, NURSES, PHYSICAL THERAPISTS AND SCIENTISTS,
Our citizen network did quite a job again today.
I cannot predict. But as the Senate offices begin to close their phones down for the evening (even as the Senate continues to do business), our friends on the Hill are feeling much more confident that we will wake up tomorrow morning and find that Sen. Cornyn and and the tech industry lobbyists will NOT yet have succeeded.
Some, though, believe Cornyn will make another attempt tonight to get a vote on his bill to almost double H-1B visas and employment-based greencards next year. Once the phone lines are down, however, you just have to take a rest and know you did what you could and hope that your efforts were enough to pull us through this evening.
Your thousands of phone calls made a major impression on all Senate offices and on both Republican and Democratic leadership offices in the House.
Our Capitol Hill Team is hearing from many staffers that this has been one of those "Phone Phenomenon" days in which one issue practically ties every office up in knots.
AND NEARLY 100% OF THE CALLS ARE ON OUR SIDE -- AGAINST HELPING THE TECH COMPANIES, UNIVERSITIES AND HOSPITALS TO USE MORE FOREIGN LABOR TO DEPRESS THE WAGES OF THEIR AMERICAN WORKERS
You may not have any idea how important that has been.
Perhaps most importantly, it has made our best Senator allies exceptionally determined to block Sen. Cornyn (R-TX). Our latest nose count is that nobody is backing off their "holds" that are keeping the Cornyn SKIL Act legislation from reaching the floor of the Senate.
Cornyn and the tech industry lobbyists continue to try to strike deals with the Senators to get them to remove their HOLDS. But backed by what they see as an overwhelming constituency knowledge of the issue and constituency opposition to increased foreign importation, the "holding" Senators are not budging. We are unaware of any of them accepting a deal to change their position.
The reason individual Senators are able to exercise such power with these holds is because Cornyn has to get a lot of normal precedure waived in order to bring up his bill at the last minute like this.
Our understanding is that Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) could go ahead and bring Cornyn's bill to the floor even with the holds if he wants to. But then he would have to get at least 60 of the 100 votes to break the holds of their colleagues -- which is kind of a personal thing.
The more that you make this bill seem totally radioactive the less likely Sen. Frist will want to end his Senate career on such an explosive note, or that 60 Senators would want to vote to break the holds.
A big thank you to all who have helped again today. There are hundreds of thousands of households this evening spread across the country that will have a much happier Christmas if we succeed in blocking the threat to their jobs, wages and standard of living that Cornyn's bill represents.
Our nation's nurses, physical therapists, scientists, engineers and programmers have studied hard and worked hard and invested considerable money to be able to do these jobs. Why should our government import massive numbers of foreign workers (which no independent study has shown are needed) when that action would cause so many middle class American households to suffer?
At NumbersUSA, we spend a lot of our time championing better treatment for the poor. But we also believe in the protection of middle-class Americans. You who have acted today have done a great service to these households.
I expect to have marching orders for you first thing tomorrow morning based on what the situation has become by that time.
THANKS,
ROY
P.S. If you didn't read Prof. Norm Matloff's San Francisco Chronicle op-ed today, please do so now because it explains so well why we consider this fight against major increases in legal foreign workers to be as important as our fight against illegal immigration.
Read the article here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/hightech.html
Our citizen network did quite a job again today.
I cannot predict. But as the Senate offices begin to close their phones down for the evening (even as the Senate continues to do business), our friends on the Hill are feeling much more confident that we will wake up tomorrow morning and find that Sen. Cornyn and and the tech industry lobbyists will NOT yet have succeeded.
Some, though, believe Cornyn will make another attempt tonight to get a vote on his bill to almost double H-1B visas and employment-based greencards next year. Once the phone lines are down, however, you just have to take a rest and know you did what you could and hope that your efforts were enough to pull us through this evening.
Your thousands of phone calls made a major impression on all Senate offices and on both Republican and Democratic leadership offices in the House.
Our Capitol Hill Team is hearing from many staffers that this has been one of those "Phone Phenomenon" days in which one issue practically ties every office up in knots.
AND NEARLY 100% OF THE CALLS ARE ON OUR SIDE -- AGAINST HELPING THE TECH COMPANIES, UNIVERSITIES AND HOSPITALS TO USE MORE FOREIGN LABOR TO DEPRESS THE WAGES OF THEIR AMERICAN WORKERS
You may not have any idea how important that has been.
Perhaps most importantly, it has made our best Senator allies exceptionally determined to block Sen. Cornyn (R-TX). Our latest nose count is that nobody is backing off their "holds" that are keeping the Cornyn SKIL Act legislation from reaching the floor of the Senate.
Cornyn and the tech industry lobbyists continue to try to strike deals with the Senators to get them to remove their HOLDS. But backed by what they see as an overwhelming constituency knowledge of the issue and constituency opposition to increased foreign importation, the "holding" Senators are not budging. We are unaware of any of them accepting a deal to change their position.
The reason individual Senators are able to exercise such power with these holds is because Cornyn has to get a lot of normal precedure waived in order to bring up his bill at the last minute like this.
Our understanding is that Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) could go ahead and bring Cornyn's bill to the floor even with the holds if he wants to. But then he would have to get at least 60 of the 100 votes to break the holds of their colleagues -- which is kind of a personal thing.
The more that you make this bill seem totally radioactive the less likely Sen. Frist will want to end his Senate career on such an explosive note, or that 60 Senators would want to vote to break the holds.
A big thank you to all who have helped again today. There are hundreds of thousands of households this evening spread across the country that will have a much happier Christmas if we succeed in blocking the threat to their jobs, wages and standard of living that Cornyn's bill represents.
Our nation's nurses, physical therapists, scientists, engineers and programmers have studied hard and worked hard and invested considerable money to be able to do these jobs. Why should our government import massive numbers of foreign workers (which no independent study has shown are needed) when that action would cause so many middle class American households to suffer?
At NumbersUSA, we spend a lot of our time championing better treatment for the poor. But we also believe in the protection of middle-class Americans. You who have acted today have done a great service to these households.
I expect to have marching orders for you first thing tomorrow morning based on what the situation has become by that time.
THANKS,
ROY
P.S. If you didn't read Prof. Norm Matloff's San Francisco Chronicle op-ed today, please do so now because it explains so well why we consider this fight against major increases in legal foreign workers to be as important as our fight against illegal immigration.
Read the article here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/hightech.html
tattoo Marc Ecko Men#39;s E95042G3 Rhino Logo Silver Stainless Steel Watch
gc_bulgaria
02-12 02:40 PM
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/28005017/
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
more...
pictures quot;Marc Ecko use to just have a
pd_recapturing
09-26 10:51 AM
You made my day. Thanks so much. :):):):):):):)
I don't understand why people are right now so worried about priority date retrogression. If you have passed 180 days after I140 approval, go ahead, change your job and incase your 485 gets denied, reapply with new employer, with new new job description, using old PD and get GC soon as your priority date will be current. Am I missing something?
There is no way I am going to spend 6-7 years in the same job with the same title(maybe even same company).
ohhhh wow !! .. Man ...It not so easy as it looks on paper ...U will find tons of ppl in the stage of limbo after doing all this ... (including me though :(
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
I don't understand why people are right now so worried about priority date retrogression. If you have passed 180 days after I140 approval, go ahead, change your job and incase your 485 gets denied, reapply with new employer, with new new job description, using old PD and get GC soon as your priority date will be current. Am I missing something?
There is no way I am going to spend 6-7 years in the same job with the same title(maybe even same company).
ohhhh wow !! .. Man ...It not so easy as it looks on paper ...U will find tons of ppl in the stage of limbo after doing all this ... (including me though :(
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
dresses Marc Ecko The Supreme Sport
tdasara
08-17 07:16 AM
Try Ben Salem, PA. I plan to go there with my EAD and I-485 this month end.
more...
makeup Marc Ecko Collection Hero
nousername
04-07 01:56 PM
gcformeornot: In your previous post you stated that "substitution is no longer valid".. I apologize as I am not very good with law jargon and definitions and no clue since when substitution was kicked out of the immigration law book.
Additional details will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
Additional details will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
girlfriend Marc Ecko Scissorskull Hoodie
akilaakka
07-13 01:54 PM
Check law and Nirenr Joshi,
Mine was paper filed by Attorney.
Checklaw: There is nothing in the law that states you need to have AP continously. If you dont anticpate to travel then you dont need AP.
However if you are in EAD then it is advicable to have AP's as no one can predict emergenices.
Thanks
senthil
Mine was paper filed by Attorney.
Checklaw: There is nothing in the law that states you need to have AP continously. If you dont anticpate to travel then you dont need AP.
However if you are in EAD then it is advicable to have AP's as no one can predict emergenices.
Thanks
senthil
hairstyles Tutone Marc Ecko #39;#39;The King#39;#39;
aillarramendi
10-01 02:23 PM
I'm understanding now and thanks but I still didn't understand why a guy from EB3 ROW with PD March 2004 is receiving now I-485 approval (GC) if the last VB shows 01 AUG, 2002?
Thanks.
Thanks.
punjabi77
08-06 12:12 PM
In my particular case, when i signed the contract, the employer agreed to pay for my GC process. But as usual, My employer also did not follow the contract and when my labor was approved, he asked me to pay for the Labor and take care of GC application fees hence forth. I was kind of surprised and did argue with my employer. But Employer gave me an option to leave his company and move to a diff company if needed. But since the labor was approved and the current project was going fine, i thought of sticking with the company and agreed on paying the GC fees.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
reddy_h
01-07 10:18 PM
Always use current valid passport in all your future applications.
No comments:
Post a Comment