bestin
10-09 01:19 PM
Please be careful giving such advises. The person in question was out-of-status because he never worked for company A, so it is not certain if he is in valid status at this point. I would not generalize saying he could file without any hassles. He should speak to a qualified attorney before doing that.Labour is approved.I140 is something more related to the employer.He is in status currently.As long as he applies everything soon (by chance he goes out of status.I mean his H1B transfer) he is safe as he can goto AOS.
Isn't
Isn't
wallpaper Another Short Summer Hair Idea

aillarramendi
10-01 12:22 PM
Is the PD for AOS same than Consular Processing??
I'm asking because is supposed that they assign visas per country or not assign but is a limit of maximum 7% (I believe) of the visas per country.
So, if a person in EB3 with PD of July 2005 ROW (Rest of the World) applied for AOS in June 2007 and the USCIS approved the Green Card, why is that?
The PD is not current for EB3 ROW so, why the approved?
Is because the unused visas of the country was not completely used for consular processing and then the USCIS is using those visas for the same country but for AOS?
I don't understand why applications that are not current are getting GC approvals?
Thanks.
I'm asking because is supposed that they assign visas per country or not assign but is a limit of maximum 7% (I believe) of the visas per country.
So, if a person in EB3 with PD of July 2005 ROW (Rest of the World) applied for AOS in June 2007 and the USCIS approved the Green Card, why is that?
The PD is not current for EB3 ROW so, why the approved?
Is because the unused visas of the country was not completely used for consular processing and then the USCIS is using those visas for the same country but for AOS?
I don't understand why applications that are not current are getting GC approvals?
Thanks.
spicy_guy
09-22 08:14 PM
Next thing....H1 program only once in 3 years or only when "needed".....
Cut the number of GCs by half...So that people will go back to their origin when their H1 expires.....
Attach huge price tag to GC... and...
Well, the message is clear...Isn't it?
Cut the number of GCs by half...So that people will go back to their origin when their H1 expires.....
Attach huge price tag to GC... and...
Well, the message is clear...Isn't it?
2011 short+hair+2011+women

swissgear
06-24 11:15 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325412638269010.html#a rticleTabs%3Darticle
Date : June 23 2010
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch Thursday a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for an overhaul of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants and more strictly fining businesses that hire illegal workers.
"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card—we want people to create jobs but we won't let entrepreneurs from around the world come here."
During his latest inaugural address, Mr. Bloomberg vowed to push to rework the nation's immigration laws in the same way that he waged battle against illegal guns. This effort will be a cornerstone of the mayor's third-term agenda, aides said.
The coalition, the Partnership for a New American Economy, supports developing a secure system for employers to verify employment eligibility and strict penalties for businesses that fail to comply. The group wants to increase opportunities for immigrants to enter the workforce and for foreign students to stay in the country.
The group will advocate for securing the nation's borders and beefing up enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The coalition supports establishing a legal path for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country now.
To effect decision-making in Washington, the group will issue research reports on the economic impact of immigration, poll public opinion, sponsor forums and potentially launch a media campaign. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is expected to provide financial support for the group's activities, as he has with his gun group.
One City Hall official said the coalition will try to focus on immigration as a "dollar and cent issue," advocating that open borders help keep the U.S. more competitive.
President Obama has pledged to champion changes to federal immigration policy, but this spring said lawmakers "may not have an appetite" for a grueling debate on immigration this year.
In addition to Mr. Bloomberg, the co-chairs include Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio; Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott Jr., CEO of Marriott International; Jim McNerney Jr., CEO of Boeing; and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.
Date : June 23 2010
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch Thursday a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for an overhaul of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants and more strictly fining businesses that hire illegal workers.
"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card—we want people to create jobs but we won't let entrepreneurs from around the world come here."
During his latest inaugural address, Mr. Bloomberg vowed to push to rework the nation's immigration laws in the same way that he waged battle against illegal guns. This effort will be a cornerstone of the mayor's third-term agenda, aides said.
The coalition, the Partnership for a New American Economy, supports developing a secure system for employers to verify employment eligibility and strict penalties for businesses that fail to comply. The group wants to increase opportunities for immigrants to enter the workforce and for foreign students to stay in the country.
The group will advocate for securing the nation's borders and beefing up enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The coalition supports establishing a legal path for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country now.
To effect decision-making in Washington, the group will issue research reports on the economic impact of immigration, poll public opinion, sponsor forums and potentially launch a media campaign. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is expected to provide financial support for the group's activities, as he has with his gun group.
One City Hall official said the coalition will try to focus on immigration as a "dollar and cent issue," advocating that open borders help keep the U.S. more competitive.
President Obama has pledged to champion changes to federal immigration policy, but this spring said lawmakers "may not have an appetite" for a grueling debate on immigration this year.
In addition to Mr. Bloomberg, the co-chairs include Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio; Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott Jr., CEO of Marriott International; Jim McNerney Jr., CEO of Boeing; and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.
more...
enggr
10-02 10:20 AM
you could try getting a letter from university that you had completed all the requirements for your degree in 2000 but your degree was formally awarded in 2002
immi_seeker,
That was a nice idea, but I won't get a letter from university saying that the degree requirements are completed in 2000. Also, the transcripts for one supplementary exam (in 2002) may speak against us. Do you think there's a chance? Please reply
immi_seeker,
That was a nice idea, but I won't get a letter from university saying that the degree requirements are completed in 2000. Also, the transcripts for one supplementary exam (in 2002) may speak against us. Do you think there's a chance? Please reply
pappu
11-06 10:13 AM
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
with a PD of Feb'07, be prepared for a several years of wait time. Unless any law passes.
However there is a silver lining:
You should thank IV members whose hard work enabled the I485 filing for everyone. Even people with PD of 2007, could file their AOS. You can enjoy your EAD and its benefits.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
with a PD of Feb'07, be prepared for a several years of wait time. Unless any law passes.
However there is a silver lining:
You should thank IV members whose hard work enabled the I485 filing for everyone. Even people with PD of 2007, could file their AOS. You can enjoy your EAD and its benefits.
more...
rongha_2000
10-02 11:57 AM
You may be generally right about this, but in my case the attorney fees are borne by my company and it is my company who advised me to apply for EAD and still said that they will maintain my H1 till my AOS is approved, and thats where all these questions started popping in my mind.
The only real reason why your lawyer wanted you to apply for EAD is to collect their fees. If you are maintaining H1, there is no need to EAD. If you lose your job, you will most likely have time to get an EAD, or you may even end up doing an H1 transfer.
The only real reason why your lawyer wanted you to apply for EAD is to collect their fees. If you are maintaining H1, there is no need to EAD. If you lose your job, you will most likely have time to get an EAD, or you may even end up doing an H1 transfer.
2010 Short Hair – 2011 Summer
rsayed
07-08 01:56 PM
Thanks a lot for posting!
Please post the URL, always, if I may add.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It's right on the home page.
Please post the URL, always, if I may add.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It's right on the home page.
more...
seba
02-08 12:41 AM
Arjun, thanks for clarifying those things. I have a couple of final questions before I book my trip if you could please help me again.
(1) My first H1B was valid from Oct 2004 to Oct 2007, and I got my stamp in Dubai. The stamp expired on Oct 2007. My second H1B is valid from Oct 2007 to Oct 2010, and I am planning to go to Halifax for the stamping. I have stayed at the same company all this time. Does "revalidation" include my situation?
(2) When leaving for Canada, they did not take your white I-94 card (stapled to passport) at the US airport. When arriving in the US, they replaced your old I-94 with a new I-94 at the US airport. Please confirm that all this is correct.
Thanks again. My company uses "immigration lawyers", but they seem rather incompetent, as many of you have experienced.
(1) My first H1B was valid from Oct 2004 to Oct 2007, and I got my stamp in Dubai. The stamp expired on Oct 2007. My second H1B is valid from Oct 2007 to Oct 2010, and I am planning to go to Halifax for the stamping. I have stayed at the same company all this time. Does "revalidation" include my situation?
(2) When leaving for Canada, they did not take your white I-94 card (stapled to passport) at the US airport. When arriving in the US, they replaced your old I-94 with a new I-94 at the US airport. Please confirm that all this is correct.
Thanks again. My company uses "immigration lawyers", but they seem rather incompetent, as many of you have experienced.
hair Cute Sassy Short Hair Styles
Nikith77
10-05 03:32 PM
I did that today and they also call the same number from there.
The caller clearly told me that Citizens or CG only
The caller clearly told me that Citizens or CG only
more...
chanduv23
09-04 04:21 PM
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
yes it is like electricity department in India - If you miss payments for a particular period - the next moment they stand in front of ur house and block power suppply whereas they are seen nowhere in vicinity when you complain that you have a power cut and need someone to fix it.
yes it is like electricity department in India - If you miss payments for a particular period - the next moment they stand in front of ur house and block power suppply whereas they are seen nowhere in vicinity when you complain that you have a power cut and need someone to fix it.
hot Short+hair+2011+women
raghureddy
03-18 06:03 PM
The reason they said was they are doing the back ground check on the company. But i am on the payroll from the same company since last 4years...
more...
house makeup Spring and Summer Hair
nixstor
04-13 06:30 PM
Gurus,
Please help me guiding in my situation:
I have been on H1B for about 2 years, I came through desi consulting company. As usual there were no bench salary and very irregular payment during project duration also, I was not paid for about 50% of time.
I had switched to another employer couple of months back, My H1B approval with new employer is still pending. recently I had got letter from Department of Labor (DOL). They are trying to investigate my previous employer if he is complying with american competitiveness and workforce improvement act(ACWIA) of 1998.
They had sent me a questioner about previous employer about salary being paid etc.
I am not sure what should I be doing in this situation:
If I reply with all facts this might effect my pending H1B status for new employer.
If I write in a way that thing were as per LC then I am lieing, which I am not comfortable with.
Third Option could be that I do not respond at all
[They had mentioned that I am NOT required to respond.]
I am seeking help from experts and forum members, what should be I doing in this situation so that my H1B transfer do not get jeopradasided.
Thanks
Saurav
If you decide to reply, tell the truth.
Telling the truth about not getting paid will not get your new H1 extension into jeopardy. If you already filed for extension and do not have pay stubs for a period of time, you will possibly receive a RFE for lack of pay stubs. your response will help as an explanation of the employer's violations in case of a RFE and possibly can get you paid for the time you were not paid.
Please help me guiding in my situation:
I have been on H1B for about 2 years, I came through desi consulting company. As usual there were no bench salary and very irregular payment during project duration also, I was not paid for about 50% of time.
I had switched to another employer couple of months back, My H1B approval with new employer is still pending. recently I had got letter from Department of Labor (DOL). They are trying to investigate my previous employer if he is complying with american competitiveness and workforce improvement act(ACWIA) of 1998.
They had sent me a questioner about previous employer about salary being paid etc.
I am not sure what should I be doing in this situation:
If I reply with all facts this might effect my pending H1B status for new employer.
If I write in a way that thing were as per LC then I am lieing, which I am not comfortable with.
Third Option could be that I do not respond at all
[They had mentioned that I am NOT required to respond.]
I am seeking help from experts and forum members, what should be I doing in this situation so that my H1B transfer do not get jeopradasided.
Thanks
Saurav
If you decide to reply, tell the truth.
Telling the truth about not getting paid will not get your new H1 extension into jeopardy. If you already filed for extension and do not have pay stubs for a period of time, you will possibly receive a RFE for lack of pay stubs. your response will help as an explanation of the employer's violations in case of a RFE and possibly can get you paid for the time you were not paid.
tattoo for summer 2011 tips

anurakt
01-21 02:12 PM
I joined Immigration voice on orkut. My name is Chandrakanth
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
more...
pictures Summer 2011 Haircuts Fashion
lskreddy
11-10 02:58 PM
The answer is no, she cannot volunteer. Community service is probably all one can do but any others that potentially can be perceived as displacement of US worker is certainly a no-no. In the proposed case, it can be construed as such.
Having said all this, its tough to interpret what actually is and is not true.
Having said all this, its tough to interpret what actually is and is not true.
dresses 2011 summer short hairstyle
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)
more...
makeup short pixie hairstyles for

munnashi
10-31 06:08 AM
Guru's
My I140 is approved on October 24 2007 and original document has got my lawyer and employer, but I have not received any original document. My question is: Does I can get original document or I have to ask to my lawyer or employer?
My I140 is approved on October 24 2007 and original document has got my lawyer and employer, but I have not received any original document. My question is: Does I can get original document or I have to ask to my lawyer or employer?
girlfriend Haircut 2011 Summer 2011

ImmiLosers
09-26 12:22 AM
1)Incase my 485 application gets denied, can I start the process again and use the PD of my current application?
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
YES YES YES - go ahead screw your smalltime employer
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
YES YES YES - go ahead screw your smalltime employer
hairstyles for short hair 2011.

coralfl
01-30 04:37 PM
I am in Coral Springs. who else in south florida? Do people meet regularly in SF?
sr123
02-11 10:13 AM
As per my understanding, the retrogression problem is due to the lack of suffucient number of visas.This number is specified by the law. Now that is what needs fixing and that has come from legislation from congress(and last I heard courts should not and cannot legislate.)
Courts or judiciary comes in only when the law is not being implemented correctly. So even if the law is lacking in some way the courts have to go by the law. The only cases where courts strike down laws are when they are against the basic structure of the constitution.
So what we need to find out is whether an existing law is being violated, then we have a case otherwise not. I dont think USCIS is violating a law. If anyone else finds information about any violation then we can pursue law suit option.
Courts or judiciary comes in only when the law is not being implemented correctly. So even if the law is lacking in some way the courts have to go by the law. The only cases where courts strike down laws are when they are against the basic structure of the constitution.
So what we need to find out is whether an existing law is being violated, then we have a case otherwise not. I dont think USCIS is violating a law. If anyone else finds information about any violation then we can pursue law suit option.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment