logiclife
08-01 01:57 PM
Here is my prediction.
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Finger-printing and namecheck are not connected. Namecheck is triggered as soon as receipt is generated. Fingerprinting is separete. The two are not going to affect each other. The only thing is fingerprinting results are out in about a minute or two, namecheck can take anywhere from 2 minutes to 20 years.
you can expect faster processing times for those categories who tend to be current for most bulletins. Which is EB1 and ROW EB2. Everyone else who is current every once in blue moon is not going to get processed quickly.
The only guarantee is that they wont waste the visa numbers this year or next year, coz they did that last year and wasted 10,000 visa numbers and got unpleasant treatment for that.
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Finger-printing and namecheck are not connected. Namecheck is triggered as soon as receipt is generated. Fingerprinting is separete. The two are not going to affect each other. The only thing is fingerprinting results are out in about a minute or two, namecheck can take anywhere from 2 minutes to 20 years.
you can expect faster processing times for those categories who tend to be current for most bulletins. Which is EB1 and ROW EB2. Everyone else who is current every once in blue moon is not going to get processed quickly.
The only guarantee is that they wont waste the visa numbers this year or next year, coz they did that last year and wasted 10,000 visa numbers and got unpleasant treatment for that.
wallpaper prez congress flipping bird
jayram123
07-15 10:56 AM
From Houston, TX
geesee
07-20 08:42 AM
^^^^^ bumping the old thread up...
Joined today..
Wanted to request IV Core to start an Orkut group but found out we already have one...
Cant believe there are only 33 members...
Orkut is a great way of publicing ImmigrationVoice among your friends.. not only in US but also in the country you came from...
Although I think Orkut community should not be used for any discussions.. It should only be used to make this site popular...
Joined today..
Wanted to request IV Core to start an Orkut group but found out we already have one...
Cant believe there are only 33 members...
Orkut is a great way of publicing ImmigrationVoice among your friends.. not only in US but also in the country you came from...
Although I think Orkut community should not be used for any discussions.. It should only be used to make this site popular...
2011 Cash Flipping Bird 1969
TheCanadian
11-26 04:38 AM
I will? That's surprising!
oh you minx you
oh you minx you
more...
chem2
07-21 01:23 PM
i posted the following on another thread back about a month ago. hopefully it will help you. haven't recd any soft or hard luds since the fingerprinting, though.
-----------
guys, until yesterday, i was in the same boat as all of you.
i-140/485/131/765 concurrently filed with tsc in Aug 2007. recd receipt notices, ead and ap without any problems in oct and nov 2007, but no fingerprint notices. called uscis couple of times (didn't open any sr's though), got standard response- application is under review, you'll be sent notices as part of the review process, don't ask when.
asked lawyer why no biometrics and he said that a lot of their clients have not recd theirs, but they were starting to see some come through (this was back in feb 2008). i also asked lawyer if it was advisable to contact local congressman/ senator for help and he advised against it, apparently if your file is with an io and your congressman/ senator sends a query, uscis has a limited amount of time to respond and the file is typically pulled from the io (don't know if i believe this, but that was the line i was fed).
finally got fed up and contacted local congressman's office; no help there either, got canned response from tsc- we recd x million applications last july and august and are trying to work through them.
then last month, i asked my senator's office to find out what was going on. this time i got a reponse back from tsc saying that they would send out notices shortly, if they hadn't done so. lo and behold, a week after receiving the tsc response from my senator's office, both my spouse and i recd fingerprint notices, which we completed yesterday.
-----------
guys, until yesterday, i was in the same boat as all of you.
i-140/485/131/765 concurrently filed with tsc in Aug 2007. recd receipt notices, ead and ap without any problems in oct and nov 2007, but no fingerprint notices. called uscis couple of times (didn't open any sr's though), got standard response- application is under review, you'll be sent notices as part of the review process, don't ask when.
asked lawyer why no biometrics and he said that a lot of their clients have not recd theirs, but they were starting to see some come through (this was back in feb 2008). i also asked lawyer if it was advisable to contact local congressman/ senator for help and he advised against it, apparently if your file is with an io and your congressman/ senator sends a query, uscis has a limited amount of time to respond and the file is typically pulled from the io (don't know if i believe this, but that was the line i was fed).
finally got fed up and contacted local congressman's office; no help there either, got canned response from tsc- we recd x million applications last july and august and are trying to work through them.
then last month, i asked my senator's office to find out what was going on. this time i got a reponse back from tsc saying that they would send out notices shortly, if they hadn't done so. lo and behold, a week after receiving the tsc response from my senator's office, both my spouse and i recd fingerprint notices, which we completed yesterday.
houston2005
08-21 11:26 AM
It is my turn to receive the "Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident" today. My depenedents are yet to receive this mail. This forum, Immigration-law, Immigration portal by Rajiv Khanna and many other immigration lawyers' websites like Murthy's etc were very useful to understand the immigration laws.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 08-30-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
Congrats.
Which service center did you applied to. I have similar PD (8/22/05) and EB2 NIW at TSC.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 08-30-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
Congrats.
Which service center did you applied to. I have similar PD (8/22/05) and EB2 NIW at TSC.
more...
dallasmbs
07-14 11:03 PM
From Dallas , will join
2010 Johnny Cash Flipping Bird,
MahaBharatGC
10-16 03:03 PM
1. It goes to the mail room and stamped on the date it was received.
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is very interesting to read actually than visualizing the process ourselves. Thanks to you and for your sources of info. just one quick clarification. In your 4 a) point:
***********
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
***********
What is considered to be inconsistency? Does H1B renewal, EAD renewal, AP renewal or travel considered a flag to be a probable inconsistency? Does changing employers by using AC21 provision or H1B transfer after filing I-485 considered to be inconsistency?
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is very interesting to read actually than visualizing the process ourselves. Thanks to you and for your sources of info. just one quick clarification. In your 4 a) point:
***********
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
***********
What is considered to be inconsistency? Does H1B renewal, EAD renewal, AP renewal or travel considered a flag to be a probable inconsistency? Does changing employers by using AC21 provision or H1B transfer after filing I-485 considered to be inconsistency?
more...
meridiani.planum
05-18 12:56 PM
If this passes this will be awesome for Ph.D. graduates.
and also for non-PhD folks like me. As they exempt these superstars from the queue, it also has the effect of making the queue smaller (slightly atleast) for everyone else. i personalyl know of two PhDs who are waiting in EB2 queue for the last 3 years...
and also for non-PhD folks like me. As they exempt these superstars from the queue, it also has the effect of making the queue smaller (slightly atleast) for everyone else. i personalyl know of two PhDs who are waiting in EB2 queue for the last 3 years...
hair Flipping You The Bird
daishwarya
07-23 02:45 PM
@linuxra: I am still waiting for my GC with Aug04 PD on EB2. I didn't get any RFE.
more...
asanghi
02-09 12:39 AM
USCIS has been sued by Citizenship hopefuls for a reason which applies to us all. The process took longer time than expected.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/BAG7QO1AN18.DTL
What if we sue USCIS, if not USCIS then some other Fed agency. Least of all, it capture the nation's attention that IV badly needs and make it a mainstream issue just like illegal immigration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/BAG7QO1AN18.DTL
What if we sue USCIS, if not USCIS then some other Fed agency. Least of all, it capture the nation's attention that IV badly needs and make it a mainstream issue just like illegal immigration.
hot Flipping the Bird
myeb2gc
02-24 02:35 PM
Hi,
I recently got my H1B extension. My consulting firm is smaller, i did not even submitted my client letter. One thing is that i am with the same employer since i am in US. As far as i know if you dont change your employer OR if you have all the documentation properly submitted then i think things will be smoother.
I recently got my H1B extension. My consulting firm is smaller, i did not even submitted my client letter. One thing is that i am with the same employer since i am in US. As far as i know if you dont change your employer OR if you have all the documentation properly submitted then i think things will be smoother.
more...
house Mr+rogers+flipping+ird
kumar1
07-28 01:18 AM
I have a question, my attorney says that he has filed the application on 2nd July without my signature.
I have not given any authorization also.
I am worried if it is valid or not.
I don't know if they take authorization from my employer or it should be from me.
Please suggest.
v
I have not given any authorization also.
I am worried if it is valid or not.
I don't know if they take authorization from my employer or it should be from me.
Please suggest.
v
tattoo flipping bird. held Monkey+flipping+ird; held Monkey+flipping+ird. chanduv23
losthope
06-11 12:30 AM
I think USCIS should be blamed because all those previous years visa numbers which are lost because they can't adjudicate the cases on time. We invested our time, resource and money for each and every step. We pay social security and taxes to run the economy. Most of us are here in "UNKNOWN" status but we are called resident and spent many many years.
I have mixed feeling on if government/congress is serious about fixing this issue because 10 years doesn't sound very positive.
It looks like immigration issue is hen that give golden egg ($ for the economy) Paper wok, Attorney frees postal fees gov fess etc. Does anyone would like to fix it?
Please share your thought.
1) Will the green card be worth after 10 years?
2) Is there any grantee this mess will be cleared in 10 Years?
3) Is time spent in path to immigration will be joyful and peaceful?
4) The time away from back home Close family and you may have already missed your nearest and dearest family function. your child niece, nephew and other close relative bonding that your had when you'r child and had all this which you may be sacrifice for the path to immigration
Please rethink what important and how to get an attention from the right people
I have mixed feeling on if government/congress is serious about fixing this issue because 10 years doesn't sound very positive.
It looks like immigration issue is hen that give golden egg ($ for the economy) Paper wok, Attorney frees postal fees gov fess etc. Does anyone would like to fix it?
Please share your thought.
1) Will the green card be worth after 10 years?
2) Is there any grantee this mess will be cleared in 10 Years?
3) Is time spent in path to immigration will be joyful and peaceful?
4) The time away from back home Close family and you may have already missed your nearest and dearest family function. your child niece, nephew and other close relative bonding that your had when you'r child and had all this which you may be sacrifice for the path to immigration
Please rethink what important and how to get an attention from the right people
more...
pictures (Flipping the Bird)
carbon
09-25 04:19 PM
I agree that 1/2 million people can't impact housing market significantly.
but look at the numbers, 1/2 million people means $100 billion untapped
market. Personaly I can't imagine any business community who wouldn't consider
this huge potential market seriously.(We are not poor
immigrants that they can ignore, we are professinals with good credit)
Who knows they might help a little to push our issues in DC or reach our goal of
raising 60K !
All IV has to do is send a simple letter to them. Whats harm in doing that !!!
but look at the numbers, 1/2 million people means $100 billion untapped
market. Personaly I can't imagine any business community who wouldn't consider
this huge potential market seriously.(We are not poor
immigrants that they can ignore, we are professinals with good credit)
Who knows they might help a little to push our issues in DC or reach our goal of
raising 60K !
All IV has to do is send a simple letter to them. Whats harm in doing that !!!
dresses flipping.ird
noone2day78
02-15 01:17 PM
Hmm... I agree with : "Once you strart using EAD your H1 will be terminated."
what I dont agree with is : "If you want to switch to H1 again your need to apply for fresh H1 in the new quota."
You can reapply for H1-B but you are NOT subject to H1-B cap / quota.
It should not be subject to the annual cap unless you have been out of the U.S. for at least one year since you were last in H-1B status.
hth!
ohh is this really true? can u specify a source for this ?
what I dont agree with is : "If you want to switch to H1 again your need to apply for fresh H1 in the new quota."
You can reapply for H1-B but you are NOT subject to H1-B cap / quota.
It should not be subject to the annual cap unless you have been out of the U.S. for at least one year since you were last in H-1B status.
hth!
ohh is this really true? can u specify a source for this ?
more...
makeup Gaga Flips The Bird - Photos
vindas
06-14 02:05 PM
Don't worry. I had received a call 3 years back from Department of Homeland security. They asked me that someone was taking picture from my car on the highway. someone had complained that we were taking pictures of "George Washington Bridge sign board" from our car. We had not even gone on that highway that day.
We told him that it is a wrong car. Why would we go on the highway and takie picture of the sign board. Somone have given wrong information.
After that we never got that kind of call. No issue at all.
We told him that it is a wrong car. Why would we go on the highway and takie picture of the sign board. Somone have given wrong information.
After that we never got that kind of call. No issue at all.
girlfriend Flipping You The Bird
wandmaker
01-02 12:57 PM
What is the exact reason for denial? In spite of your education evaluation as well as letter from the Registrar in India they still dont believe Maths was your major?
You should appeal. It can take a few months (4-6) but its not worth letting it go so easily. Try to get a better education evaluation done (try Sheila Danzig, she has helped some folks on immigrationportal.com). Also, ask your attorney why he is confident the appeal will work in your case (ie. what does he plan to present in the appeal that he did not include in the RFE response).
Also, start another LC in parallel if you are about to run out of your 6 years on H1, as a backup (you can get H1 extensions based on this LC while its under appeal, but if the appeal is also ultimately denied, you want to keep your options open)
I was about write the same, good advice.
You should appeal. It can take a few months (4-6) but its not worth letting it go so easily. Try to get a better education evaluation done (try Sheila Danzig, she has helped some folks on immigrationportal.com). Also, ask your attorney why he is confident the appeal will work in your case (ie. what does he plan to present in the appeal that he did not include in the RFE response).
Also, start another LC in parallel if you are about to run out of your 6 years on H1, as a backup (you can get H1 extensions based on this LC while its under appeal, but if the appeal is also ultimately denied, you want to keep your options open)
I was about write the same, good advice.
hairstyles Kissing the flipping bird,
quizzer
10-16 09:10 PM
Any EB2 folks with RD prior to Jan 2007 still waiting for approvals?
lkapildev
11-13 04:21 PM
You may be lucky You can have a GC without I-140 approval. True. Your GC status is subject to I-140 Approval
You may be unlucky, USCIS might have returned your application or there is some RFE etc.
Just prey
You may be unlucky, USCIS might have returned your application or there is some RFE etc.
Just prey
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
No comments:
Post a Comment