indianabacklog
08-13 11:39 AM
Yes, i opened a new thread so that everybody can see that CIS does mostly work on cases according to 485 Receipt Date. Otherwise i can't justify my EAD approval. I filed 485 and AP on June 18th and got RNs 2 weeks later. But EAD was filed later on July 12th. I got the receipt number for EAD from the back of my cashed check but never got actual Receipt Notice. Today i got the email that card production has been ordered.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
From your case alone this is rather a sweeping judgment. I can assure you they do NOT process based on receipt date if they did my husbands EAD which was received on May 3rd would be approved by now and yours would not. He is still waiting thirteen weeks on.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
From your case alone this is rather a sweeping judgment. I can assure you they do NOT process based on receipt date if they did my husbands EAD which was received on May 3rd would be approved by now and yours would not. He is still waiting thirteen weeks on.
wallpaper Eyeshadow For Green Eyes
shutterbabe
11-19 09:41 AM
Thanx everyone for the helpful advice. I will schedule an infopass appointment. Can can I see an I/O at a location that doesn't service my area?
PDDec05
06-29 10:08 PM
Seahawks,
Your lawyer is correct in saying that the USCIS will most likely not fix the problem by just writing to them.
I have been through this stupidity with the I-140 petition. While the case was pending, we found out that there was an error in the application form. We notified the USCIS but they still sent the approval notice with the first and last names interchanged. We wrote again, but they responded saying that it was not a USCIS error, the name of the beneficiary on the approval notice appears exactly as it is on the application form (and what about the supporting documents, you wonder!). So, they asked us to file an amended application.
We filed the I-140 again, with all the supporting documents, all the fees, etc. and got it approved.
The USCIS will not fix an error, that you have made, on their dime. Simply writing letters is not going to work - they probably want you to file an "Amended Petition". This is what should have been done in my case when we found the mistake; but we just kept writing letters.
You should call the USCIS and ask to speak to an expert who can tell you exactly what needs to be done. Also, when the USCIS representative answers the phone, they give you their identification number - take it down for future reference.
All the best
nixstorI don't have any input on that, my attorney told me he is busy, he has other applications that flood his office, even if he writes a letter, the wont do anything in USCIS, go for FP and explain to them the situation. He also said I should have looked at it! bummer
Your lawyer is correct in saying that the USCIS will most likely not fix the problem by just writing to them.
I have been through this stupidity with the I-140 petition. While the case was pending, we found out that there was an error in the application form. We notified the USCIS but they still sent the approval notice with the first and last names interchanged. We wrote again, but they responded saying that it was not a USCIS error, the name of the beneficiary on the approval notice appears exactly as it is on the application form (and what about the supporting documents, you wonder!). So, they asked us to file an amended application.
We filed the I-140 again, with all the supporting documents, all the fees, etc. and got it approved.
The USCIS will not fix an error, that you have made, on their dime. Simply writing letters is not going to work - they probably want you to file an "Amended Petition". This is what should have been done in my case when we found the mistake; but we just kept writing letters.
You should call the USCIS and ask to speak to an expert who can tell you exactly what needs to be done. Also, when the USCIS representative answers the phone, they give you their identification number - take it down for future reference.
All the best
nixstorI don't have any input on that, my attorney told me he is busy, he has other applications that flood his office, even if he writes a letter, the wont do anything in USCIS, go for FP and explain to them the situation. He also said I should have looked at it! bummer
2011 tattoo Smoky Eye Makeup Tips
Kevin Sadler
June 6th, 2005, 05:00 AM
It's hard to tell in this particular photo but it looks like the majority of the frame is either shadow or dark green. The metering systems in these cameras tries to make everything "gray", or make really dark things lighter, or really light things darker. It works most of the time where there is a good mix of tones. However in this case since the majority of the frame is dark it may be trying to bring it up and as a result blow out some of the flower petals that are on the edge of the bright side.
You can check the meter on your camera very easily by doing a poor man's spot meter.
1. Get close enough to the yellow plant so that the flower fills the entire frame in your viewfinder. Press the shutter halfway down and note the meter reading. If your lens won't focus that close don't worry about it, you just need the aperture and shutter speed numbers.
2. Check your manual to find out how to use Exposure Lock. At this point, lock the exposure, move back, compose the image the way you want, and take the picture with the metering from #1. If everything is working, your flowers should be exposed correctly but all of those shadows in the back will probably be black with no detail.
I found a photo from cox on this forum that has a similar light condition. This guy is a master at it. http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/25275/cat/887
Let us know how it works out!
Good Luck, Kevin
You can check the meter on your camera very easily by doing a poor man's spot meter.
1. Get close enough to the yellow plant so that the flower fills the entire frame in your viewfinder. Press the shutter halfway down and note the meter reading. If your lens won't focus that close don't worry about it, you just need the aperture and shutter speed numbers.
2. Check your manual to find out how to use Exposure Lock. At this point, lock the exposure, move back, compose the image the way you want, and take the picture with the metering from #1. If everything is working, your flowers should be exposed correctly but all of those shadows in the back will probably be black with no detail.
I found a photo from cox on this forum that has a similar light condition. This guy is a master at it. http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/25275/cat/887
Let us know how it works out!
Good Luck, Kevin
more...
boreal
08-24 06:38 PM
Quick point:
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
wow .. 483 posts! Way to go!
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
wow .. 483 posts! Way to go!
mlk2009
08-06 07:32 PM
hi,
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
more...
md_alien
06-22 11:55 AM
Skin test is mandatory unless you provide proof to the USCIS civil surgeon that you have done skin test in the past and the results were "POSITIVE"
As per my doc, if one has a "POSITIVE" skin reaction to PPD test, they should never take the skin test again as there is a danger of severe inflammation.
Another point to note is that if the reaction to PPD is over 10mm (even if X-Ray is negative) USCIS might want documentation to prove that you have been evaluated by the State's Public Health Dept and undergoing treatment. This is my personal experience as I had 16mm reaction to PPD. I have a copy of the RFE and can upload a scan if it benefits the community in general.
In US, a positive skin test result is interpreted as the person having had exposure to Tuberculin bacteria in the past which are lying dorman in his/her lungs. They will want to start a 4 mnth antibiotic treatment to eliminate the dormant bacteria. I'm currently on the course, 2 pills a day, although I had negative X-Ray. :mad: :mad: :mad:
As per my doc, if one has a "POSITIVE" skin reaction to PPD test, they should never take the skin test again as there is a danger of severe inflammation.
Another point to note is that if the reaction to PPD is over 10mm (even if X-Ray is negative) USCIS might want documentation to prove that you have been evaluated by the State's Public Health Dept and undergoing treatment. This is my personal experience as I had 16mm reaction to PPD. I have a copy of the RFE and can upload a scan if it benefits the community in general.
In US, a positive skin test result is interpreted as the person having had exposure to Tuberculin bacteria in the past which are lying dorman in his/her lungs. They will want to start a 4 mnth antibiotic treatment to eliminate the dormant bacteria. I'm currently on the course, 2 pills a day, although I had negative X-Ray. :mad: :mad: :mad:
2010 Kristen has olive-green eyes
perm2gc
08-26 01:19 AM
Dude it is pretty clear you dont belong here. If you joined a body-shop that replaced americans with cheap bodies then your employer violated the law and you were a willing accomplice. You are no better than an illegal alien. No wonder you are so scared of being replaced by yet another cheap body ! IV does not represent people like you.
Now get the hell out of here.well said dude
Now get the hell out of here.well said dude
more...
desi3933
07-20 04:26 PM
AP is a must. If you travel out of the country and your GC gets approved while you're away... your H1 becomes invalid and you cannot use it enter US. The only way to return then is AP.
Incorrect.
One is allowed to enter on H1 under deferred inspection if the I-485 is approved while applicant is not in US. Of course, one can enter on AP as well.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
Incorrect.
One is allowed to enter on H1 under deferred inspection if the I-485 is approved while applicant is not in US. Of course, one can enter on AP as well.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
hair smoky eye makeup tips · brown
Munshi75
06-08 06:41 PM
I hired an attorney from murthy for EAD/ AC21 , it was good talking to them. But make sure that, be prepared with all the questions and they tend to side track and don't let them do that. If you feel they are taking irrelevant stuff , interrupt immediately .
more...
vegi_hyd@yahoo.com
06-07 09:55 AM
I would (and did) send to the address on the confirmation page. If you search for other forums on EAD filing recently, that is what is also recommended there
Thanks JackisBack.
Thanks JackisBack.
hot Have blue-green eyes but
CantLeaveAmerica
04-01 11:05 AM
Here is the answer! Your filing date was July2, 07. If you filed with NSC, in Feb they had moved their processing dates to July 18th. So your case was assigned to officer for review and he called for interview!.
Then he made a decision: Case approvable pending visa availability!
Hope that helps!
Yes, what Vinnysuru said makes sense completely and seems to be the apt explanation for your case. I have a question though if I may ask?
What did the Immigration officer ask you and what were your answers? Any input from you will be appreciated by all of us if someone here gets an interview call too :)
Then he made a decision: Case approvable pending visa availability!
Hope that helps!
Yes, what Vinnysuru said makes sense completely and seems to be the apt explanation for your case. I have a question though if I may ask?
What did the Immigration officer ask you and what were your answers? Any input from you will be appreciated by all of us if someone here gets an interview call too :)
more...
house makeup for green eyes,
sasidhar79
09-16 02:37 PM
I just signed the online petition to drop Dobbs, I hope everybody in IV will do it and help us get rid of this Hatemonger.
tattoo 1 eye makeup tips for brown
Gravitation
10-23 10:30 AM
One common misconception is that there's a "quota" for each country. There's none.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
more...
pictures makeup Brown Eyes Makeup Tips
kaizersoze
03-21 12:30 PM
I just posted this on another thread. I'lls et up a conf call, hopefully this weekend. We need to build some momentum and meet as many lawmakers as possible.
PS: This post pertains to seattle area congressmen. I'll post a contact list of lawmakers in the northwest region. I noticed that someone from portland als posted here.
Folks,
As part of the WA state chapter, we have started meeting lawmakers. We met one congressman last week, are meeting one this friday and another next week and more as appointments get scheduled. I just want to share at this point that the initial reaction was very positive. They are very approachable, and very willing to listen. They understood the pain we are going through and noted the suggestions we made and the provisions that we want them to support.
I want to point out that although they were aware of the ongoing debate on immigration and the difference between H1B issues and GC issues, they dont fully understand the GC process and how long and how much we suffer in the process. Once they realize this, they look at it differently. The only way they will know is if we go and talk to them !!
I request and urge everyone to take 2 mins out of their busy schedules and just call their congressmen/senators. Help the core team out. They cannot do everything themselves. IV has all the material ready on the website. All you have to do is spend 30 mins talking to the representatives about it. I am speaking from personal experience. IT GOES A LONG WAY !!
Once we have met a couple more lawmakers, I'll put a detailed post about the takeaways.
PS: This post pertains to seattle area congressmen. I'll post a contact list of lawmakers in the northwest region. I noticed that someone from portland als posted here.
Folks,
As part of the WA state chapter, we have started meeting lawmakers. We met one congressman last week, are meeting one this friday and another next week and more as appointments get scheduled. I just want to share at this point that the initial reaction was very positive. They are very approachable, and very willing to listen. They understood the pain we are going through and noted the suggestions we made and the provisions that we want them to support.
I want to point out that although they were aware of the ongoing debate on immigration and the difference between H1B issues and GC issues, they dont fully understand the GC process and how long and how much we suffer in the process. Once they realize this, they look at it differently. The only way they will know is if we go and talk to them !!
I request and urge everyone to take 2 mins out of their busy schedules and just call their congressmen/senators. Help the core team out. They cannot do everything themselves. IV has all the material ready on the website. All you have to do is spend 30 mins talking to the representatives about it. I am speaking from personal experience. IT GOES A LONG WAY !!
Once we have met a couple more lawmakers, I'll put a detailed post about the takeaways.
dresses found is that make-up tips
chanduv23
09-04 04:14 PM
Remember, the NOID/RFE goes to your Attorney if you have submitted G-28 form. If not, it comes to you.
Usually they send 2 copies - one to your home address and another to your Attorney. Always make sure your current address is on file with USCIS
Usually they send 2 copies - one to your home address and another to your Attorney. Always make sure your current address is on file with USCIS
more...
makeup best eye makeup for green eyes
vicks_don
04-18 03:16 PM
All cases filed before april 1st would they be transfered to TSC or processed at VSC.
Mine was filed last october.
Thanks
Mine was filed last october.
Thanks
girlfriend Eye Makeup For Green Eyes
invincibleasian
02-10 05:27 PM
I hope they dont flood the US from UK now. Then we will have more retrogression!
hairstyles green eyes makeup tips.
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 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)
Rakson
02-28 11:12 AM
Can anybody please help in answering below questions on my case? I really appreciate your help. This is urgent for me.
#1: I am working for Company A (current company). My GC processing details (with current company):
1. Labor Approved.
2. I-140 Approved with priority date of Aug 2006 (Category -EB2)
3. I-485 - NOT filed
#2: I am on 6th year of H1-B. My current H1-B is valid till Jan 29, 2011 (less than 365 days from today).
I want to change job and join Company B (new company) for excellent offer and life long stability.
As per my understanding, for continuous H1-B extension & GC approval on existing priority date, I must stay with existing company(A). But attorney of new company(B) is saying he will be able to handle my H1-B extension and may be able to save my priority date also by filing new PERM & I-140. I am not sure whether attorney of new company(B) is correct or not. Can anybody please help in answering below questions?
Ques : If new company(B) transfers H1-B and USCIS will grant H1-B for 3 years based on approved I-140 with current company(A):
A. Can USCIS revokes extended period ( after Jan 29, 2011) if current company(A) revokes their approved I-140 before new company(B) gets approval of new PERM and I-140?
B. Can new company (B) start new PERM application during my extension period (after Jan 29, 2011)?
C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?
#1: I am working for Company A (current company). My GC processing details (with current company):
1. Labor Approved.
2. I-140 Approved with priority date of Aug 2006 (Category -EB2)
3. I-485 - NOT filed
#2: I am on 6th year of H1-B. My current H1-B is valid till Jan 29, 2011 (less than 365 days from today).
I want to change job and join Company B (new company) for excellent offer and life long stability.
As per my understanding, for continuous H1-B extension & GC approval on existing priority date, I must stay with existing company(A). But attorney of new company(B) is saying he will be able to handle my H1-B extension and may be able to save my priority date also by filing new PERM & I-140. I am not sure whether attorney of new company(B) is correct or not. Can anybody please help in answering below questions?
Ques : If new company(B) transfers H1-B and USCIS will grant H1-B for 3 years based on approved I-140 with current company(A):
A. Can USCIS revokes extended period ( after Jan 29, 2011) if current company(A) revokes their approved I-140 before new company(B) gets approval of new PERM and I-140?
B. Can new company (B) start new PERM application during my extension period (after Jan 29, 2011)?
C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?
danu2007
08-21 09:26 AM
Congratulations.:)
No comments:
Post a Comment