bekugc
03-18 12:41 PM
while we use Ead to chg to a different company during ac21, is it possible to first chg the company using ead and then later apply for h1 transfer ?
wallpaper sony ericsson xperia x8 black
akhilmahajan
11-15 02:34 PM
Is there any possibility of organizing a statewide charity drive sponsored by IV state chapters during the holiday season. This is the season of giving. Why not organize it through IV state chapters. Proceeds can be donated to charities as suggested by donors. We can target
employers, congressmen, senators, relatives, friends....even anti immigrants will donate.
Anybody with prior experience of such fund raising, please comment. We also need to come up with a slogan for this campaign (It may be better if the slogan in itself is not related to immigration) . IV will just do a soft sell in this propaganda. This will increase IV name & also push respective state members to be active in their state chapters.
Comments?
The whole idea is to get people understand and above all accept the problem.
If people can accept the problem and come out willing to find out a solution, then anything can be done.
This is a good time to meet eh lawmakers as they will be coming back for the thanksgiving break. we can highlight our issue.
We can also help in setting up law maker meetings. Folks please contact your state chapters. People are waiting top help you, but if you dont decide to help yourself, then no one can help you.
Think about it.
GO IV GO. TOGTHER WE CAN.
employers, congressmen, senators, relatives, friends....even anti immigrants will donate.
Anybody with prior experience of such fund raising, please comment. We also need to come up with a slogan for this campaign (It may be better if the slogan in itself is not related to immigration) . IV will just do a soft sell in this propaganda. This will increase IV name & also push respective state members to be active in their state chapters.
Comments?
The whole idea is to get people understand and above all accept the problem.
If people can accept the problem and come out willing to find out a solution, then anything can be done.
This is a good time to meet eh lawmakers as they will be coming back for the thanksgiving break. we can highlight our issue.
We can also help in setting up law maker meetings. Folks please contact your state chapters. People are waiting top help you, but if you dont decide to help yourself, then no one can help you.
Think about it.
GO IV GO. TOGTHER WE CAN.
Sammo
08-23 03:25 PM
Wow - thanks for all the votes on mine :)
2011 sony ericsson xperia x8 black
iptel
02-14 01:21 PM
Chapter 2: Skills for the U.S. Workforce.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
covers great deal of importance of H1B and Green Card. May be we can consider it to be part of our presentation.
Part of the report says
Caps on employment-based green cards limit the number of high-skilled
foreigners who can become permanent residents. The cap is set at 140,000
visas per year, including visas for the workers� spouses and children. Each
country�s nationals can make up no more than 7 percent of total immigrant
visas. These caps have led to long delays for applicants, especially for workers
from over-represented countries. For instance, some workers who became
eligible in January 2006 for EB-2 employment-based green cards (for workers
with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability) had applied for
permanent residence five years earlier.
A variety of proposals have been advanced for permanent employmentbased
immigration to allow for more high-skilled workers and to reduce wait
times. Any changes to the cap on the number of employment-based green
cards would require legislative action. First, workers� spouses and children
could be exempted from the cap, as is currently done for the H-1B program.
Spouses and children make up about half of the recipients of employmentbased
green cards, so this change would roughly double the number of
workers able to get employment-based green cards. Second, the fixed 140,000
cap could be replaced with a flexible market-based cap that would increase or
decrease with demand for workers eligible for employment-based green cards.
Finally, under current policy, nationals of no single country can receive more
than 7 percent of green cards. This share could be raised to reduce the long
delays for employment-based green cards for applicants from countries with
large numbers of desirable, high-skilled workers. Careful enforcement of
limits on foreign nationals� access to sensitive technology would provide
continued protection for our national security.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
covers great deal of importance of H1B and Green Card. May be we can consider it to be part of our presentation.
Part of the report says
Caps on employment-based green cards limit the number of high-skilled
foreigners who can become permanent residents. The cap is set at 140,000
visas per year, including visas for the workers� spouses and children. Each
country�s nationals can make up no more than 7 percent of total immigrant
visas. These caps have led to long delays for applicants, especially for workers
from over-represented countries. For instance, some workers who became
eligible in January 2006 for EB-2 employment-based green cards (for workers
with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability) had applied for
permanent residence five years earlier.
A variety of proposals have been advanced for permanent employmentbased
immigration to allow for more high-skilled workers and to reduce wait
times. Any changes to the cap on the number of employment-based green
cards would require legislative action. First, workers� spouses and children
could be exempted from the cap, as is currently done for the H-1B program.
Spouses and children make up about half of the recipients of employmentbased
green cards, so this change would roughly double the number of
workers able to get employment-based green cards. Second, the fixed 140,000
cap could be replaced with a flexible market-based cap that would increase or
decrease with demand for workers eligible for employment-based green cards.
Finally, under current policy, nationals of no single country can receive more
than 7 percent of green cards. This share could be raised to reduce the long
delays for employment-based green cards for applicants from countries with
large numbers of desirable, high-skilled workers. Careful enforcement of
limits on foreign nationals� access to sensitive technology would provide
continued protection for our national security.
more...
spicy_guy
04-08 04:47 PM
I believe the intention of not moving too much beyond jul 06 , may be to make some spill over benfit happen to EB3 also. If they open the gate for EB2 now, lots of 485 application may come in and there may not be spill over to EB3. :)
Krupa
If that were to happen, EB3 I should move at least one month ?!!?!
Krupa
If that were to happen, EB3 I should move at least one month ?!!?!
vikramaditya
05-01 12:15 PM
i cannot contact my old employer as the company is taken over by another one .I sure can use the old PD but still have to wait for months till i 140 gets approved .This time i have a high chance of rfe and rejection as it is by a small company and for future employement .
more...
kumarc123
11-06 03:46 PM
sreedhar
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
2010 sony ericsson xperia x8 black colour. Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
rani77
03-17 07:57 AM
I saw your post completely. It looks like that is a no go but you can try two things open a MTR and file an 140 in EB3 .Also parallely start another new case from scratch . You PD is Aug 2006 which may not seem a big advantage now but in a couple of years of time it will be. This may also cost a bit more so apart from financial aspect it doesnt hurt more to do these do things parallely. You got to take the call. Also make sure that you hire a good /well know attroney , your case typically indicates that the attorney made the wrong decision in filing
more...
kondur_007
08-11 09:47 PM
Dear Friends
One of the USCIS IO at NSC told me today that processing date of August 10 2007 for I-485 is nothing but a guess work. She said, in reality the processing date is far behind that. When I said I may have better luck predicting Power Ball numbers, she said that could be very much true than predicting what USCIS does.
Remember, in 2004 then USCIS director along with Bush unveiled a grandose plan in which they said by 2006, they will reduce I-140 petition processing times (for that matter any petition processing time) to 180 days. Four years later, things have became worse. Did anyone take responsibility? No. They give excuses.
For example, for my I-140 under EB2-NIW, NSC processing date shows February 27, 2007; and I filed in April 2007. But, I got approved. (no complaints). Technically, they shouldn't have picked up mine.
My friend applied in June 2007 and his I-140 got approved in December 2007 when their online processing date shows November 2006. So, they processed a petition that was filed 11 months ahead of their processing time. Great....
My colleague who shares office with me applied in October 2006 and still waiting to hear until today. Service requests did not do any good to him. Infopass is a pass. They all said he need to have patience... (lots of it).
Many many instances like this. Online processing dates or what the customer service tells you doesn't mean a shit.
The only thing that is good about online posting of processing dates is, we can file a service request which in many cases, after secondary request, tend to accelerate your case. You still need luck.
How many of you hear "your case is with in normal processing time"... I have been waiting for 18 months for my I-140... what the hell in the world normal about it? Only USCIS seem to understand it.
In the nutshell, its a funny and most idiotic agency and you cannot predict what it does. Do the same treatment to US Citizens, USCIS will be dragged into courts and torn apart in talk shows. Since we are non-citizens who are suffering, no body cares.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
If you apply for 485, you get finger prints done. After a month, if you apply for EAD, you go again. What? Are your finger prints going to change every one month? What a waste of resources and time? USCIS do these kinds boneheaded things all the time.
Only thing that will get you green card faster is "Luck".
Good luck to all of us.
This is exactly why this is the perfect time to structure our agenda for the upcoming CIR next year and try to introduce it in the bill to streamline this mess for everyone in future.
It is very clear and everyone knows that with current structure and resources, using current procedures, USCIS will never be anywhere close to be "efficient" or even "effective". What is needed is radical change in the procedures and the structure of this agency. I dont think it is the fault of "a person"; the whole system is the problem. I would not be surprised to see a "frustrated" USCIS employee over these inefficiencies.
One of the USCIS IO at NSC told me today that processing date of August 10 2007 for I-485 is nothing but a guess work. She said, in reality the processing date is far behind that. When I said I may have better luck predicting Power Ball numbers, she said that could be very much true than predicting what USCIS does.
Remember, in 2004 then USCIS director along with Bush unveiled a grandose plan in which they said by 2006, they will reduce I-140 petition processing times (for that matter any petition processing time) to 180 days. Four years later, things have became worse. Did anyone take responsibility? No. They give excuses.
For example, for my I-140 under EB2-NIW, NSC processing date shows February 27, 2007; and I filed in April 2007. But, I got approved. (no complaints). Technically, they shouldn't have picked up mine.
My friend applied in June 2007 and his I-140 got approved in December 2007 when their online processing date shows November 2006. So, they processed a petition that was filed 11 months ahead of their processing time. Great....
My colleague who shares office with me applied in October 2006 and still waiting to hear until today. Service requests did not do any good to him. Infopass is a pass. They all said he need to have patience... (lots of it).
Many many instances like this. Online processing dates or what the customer service tells you doesn't mean a shit.
The only thing that is good about online posting of processing dates is, we can file a service request which in many cases, after secondary request, tend to accelerate your case. You still need luck.
How many of you hear "your case is with in normal processing time"... I have been waiting for 18 months for my I-140... what the hell in the world normal about it? Only USCIS seem to understand it.
In the nutshell, its a funny and most idiotic agency and you cannot predict what it does. Do the same treatment to US Citizens, USCIS will be dragged into courts and torn apart in talk shows. Since we are non-citizens who are suffering, no body cares.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
If you apply for 485, you get finger prints done. After a month, if you apply for EAD, you go again. What? Are your finger prints going to change every one month? What a waste of resources and time? USCIS do these kinds boneheaded things all the time.
Only thing that will get you green card faster is "Luck".
Good luck to all of us.
This is exactly why this is the perfect time to structure our agenda for the upcoming CIR next year and try to introduce it in the bill to streamline this mess for everyone in future.
It is very clear and everyone knows that with current structure and resources, using current procedures, USCIS will never be anywhere close to be "efficient" or even "effective". What is needed is radical change in the procedures and the structure of this agency. I dont think it is the fault of "a person"; the whole system is the problem. I would not be surprised to see a "frustrated" USCIS employee over these inefficiencies.
hair Mobile phone vendor Sony
marlon2006
06-14 11:30 AM
Yes. It seems that NY was a little behind NSC.
It is a very, very inconvenient situation to be in. We are getting older and this lack of professional freedom has potential to ruin our careers you know.
Since it is now on Oct/2001, it seems you should be getting closer to file I-485. Chances are you will be able to see this going to Nov/2001 as early as next month ! That could give you some relief.
I started my masters, but ironically, we are not eligible for in-state tuition therefore I put studies on hold, waiting for the GC. It is hard paying from our own pockets, it is very expensive and at the same time I already received job offers from employers in this area that would be willing to pay the graduate studies 100%, but again, I am waiting for the GC so that I could move on.
Wow, so you were able to file I-140 and I-485 at the same time? My PD is 11/01 but due to retrogression we are waiting for the visa numbers to become current to file :mad:
It is a very, very inconvenient situation to be in. We are getting older and this lack of professional freedom has potential to ruin our careers you know.
Since it is now on Oct/2001, it seems you should be getting closer to file I-485. Chances are you will be able to see this going to Nov/2001 as early as next month ! That could give you some relief.
I started my masters, but ironically, we are not eligible for in-state tuition therefore I put studies on hold, waiting for the GC. It is hard paying from our own pockets, it is very expensive and at the same time I already received job offers from employers in this area that would be willing to pay the graduate studies 100%, but again, I am waiting for the GC so that I could move on.
Wow, so you were able to file I-140 and I-485 at the same time? My PD is 11/01 but due to retrogression we are waiting for the visa numbers to become current to file :mad:
more...
lskreddy
08-22 03:48 PM
Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP - San Francisco - just Google them....you should be able to find contact information. They've treated me wonderfully!!
Were you kidding or serious? You just quoted the very same name that guy is to avoid.
Fragomen is the only part missing in the name you mentioned. I hope the other three didn't ditch Fragomen to start DBL..
Were you kidding or serious? You just quoted the very same name that guy is to avoid.
Fragomen is the only part missing in the name you mentioned. I hope the other three didn't ditch Fragomen to start DBL..
hot sony ericsson xperia x8 black.
pappu
12-01 03:40 PM
I am not sure about the exact Business Analyst vs Programmer Analyst functions, but from my own experience, just make sure that your lawyer makes your job description very broad. It will help you not just in your process with the existing company but also if you were to change the job after 485.
more...
house Sony Ericsson Xperia X8 review
bigboy007
12-10 04:23 PM
Pay scale : My initial labor is approved with Company A with Payrange of 48K thereafter i am getting around 79K with the same employer and around the time when my 140 is applied and approved + 485 filed.
Now new job with be around around payscale of 85k etc how does it effect ? based on following lines i used to get similar amount when my 140 is filed.
PPL SAY
The Yates Memo (2005) explained that a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial, as long as the case meets occupational classification requirement. However, a significant discrepancy in salary may be a factor in determining whether the new job is "same or similar."
Now new job with be around around payscale of 85k etc how does it effect ? based on following lines i used to get similar amount when my 140 is filed.
PPL SAY
The Yates Memo (2005) explained that a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial, as long as the case meets occupational classification requirement. However, a significant discrepancy in salary may be a factor in determining whether the new job is "same or similar."
tattoo for Sony Ericsson X8(Hong
kshitijnt
07-17 01:00 PM
I am confused with regards to AOS Vs. CP and which one to choose.
My visa status is L1B with Company A and my green card for future employment is with Company B.
Since I am on L1B, should I choose AOS (Adjustment of status) or CP (Counslar processing) for my I485 processing. Which one wld be the best for me, since I may be in India when the dates become current or may be here in the US ? The timing is a big unknown.
IF I choose CP, what are the steps after I140 approval?
How hard is it to switch from AOS to CP or vice- versa?
What are the pros and cons for AOS Vs CP?
I am looking for some guidance from anyone who has gone through this / familiar with this situation. Thanks!
I initially chose CP on my form but now going to file 485. You can switch it either way
Switching from CP to AOS:
Just file 485, nothing else needs to be done. No need (as of now), to wait for I140 approval. If you do not switch to AOS downside is you cant make use of attorney certified I140 and must make appointment through consular process.
Switching from AOS to CP:
I140 must be approved. Then you need to file I824. Once I824 receipt notice is received, you can talk to the consulate and schedule an appointment. No need to go through NVC. However, if you have already filed 485, it will be abandoned, at the least all the money paid for it, you have to pay for visa again & travel cost to your home country.
My visa status is L1B with Company A and my green card for future employment is with Company B.
Since I am on L1B, should I choose AOS (Adjustment of status) or CP (Counslar processing) for my I485 processing. Which one wld be the best for me, since I may be in India when the dates become current or may be here in the US ? The timing is a big unknown.
IF I choose CP, what are the steps after I140 approval?
How hard is it to switch from AOS to CP or vice- versa?
What are the pros and cons for AOS Vs CP?
I am looking for some guidance from anyone who has gone through this / familiar with this situation. Thanks!
I initially chose CP on my form but now going to file 485. You can switch it either way
Switching from CP to AOS:
Just file 485, nothing else needs to be done. No need (as of now), to wait for I140 approval. If you do not switch to AOS downside is you cant make use of attorney certified I140 and must make appointment through consular process.
Switching from AOS to CP:
I140 must be approved. Then you need to file I824. Once I824 receipt notice is received, you can talk to the consulate and schedule an appointment. No need to go through NVC. However, if you have already filed 485, it will be abandoned, at the least all the money paid for it, you have to pay for visa again & travel cost to your home country.
more...
pictures Black Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
ahaadi
01-08 01:47 PM
I also had submitted with my I-94 attached. I forgot to remove it. It was stapled and I got it back with my old passport. So dont worry.
dresses Sony Ericsson XPERIA X8 is a
YesGC_NoGC
06-20 01:34 PM
Yes I do agree with you to move on without worry!! As I mentioned that I had made up my mind to accept the position and skip informing USCIS as i read at some places , that it is optional to inform.
However The Immigration guys (from the prospective employer) saiid that DOL may not like the word "MANAGER" in my case and this can cause issues at later point of time. And They have policy to send letter to USCIS.
I am looking at looking at options...let's see what is the outcome.
Thanks
Guys: I have invoked my AC21 and am a consultant PM though my LC mentions "Programmer/Analyst". I came to this country because it is a land of opportunity and have been in the US for over 9 years now. I can't let this stupid AC21 provisions of "Same or Similar occupation" scepter of fear stop me from moving forward.
I'm also looking for a Full-time job as a Manager and if I get it I intend on taking it in a heart-beat without worrying about the consequences. Hey, it's not like I'm doing something illegal but merely exercising my due growth in my career. So, I'm moving on and if something bad were to happen like a NOID or a RFE, I'm ready to pack my bags back home with a satisfaction that I was atleast in the driver's seat.
My 2 cents but please do what is right for you.
However The Immigration guys (from the prospective employer) saiid that DOL may not like the word "MANAGER" in my case and this can cause issues at later point of time. And They have policy to send letter to USCIS.
I am looking at looking at options...let's see what is the outcome.
Thanks
Guys: I have invoked my AC21 and am a consultant PM though my LC mentions "Programmer/Analyst". I came to this country because it is a land of opportunity and have been in the US for over 9 years now. I can't let this stupid AC21 provisions of "Same or Similar occupation" scepter of fear stop me from moving forward.
I'm also looking for a Full-time job as a Manager and if I get it I intend on taking it in a heart-beat without worrying about the consequences. Hey, it's not like I'm doing something illegal but merely exercising my due growth in my career. So, I'm moving on and if something bad were to happen like a NOID or a RFE, I'm ready to pack my bags back home with a satisfaction that I was atleast in the driver's seat.
My 2 cents but please do what is right for you.
more...
makeup Color:Black,White,Grey,Pink
chris9902
06-09 05:43 AM
how can you make a site that bad
i can't make ground-breaking sites but i don't think my brain could make something that total ****
SOUL all the way
PS: love the midi can you send me it:-\
i can't make ground-breaking sites but i don't think my brain could make something that total ****
SOUL all the way
PS: love the midi can you send me it:-\
girlfriend sony ericsson xperia x8 black colour. X10 XPERIA. Crystal Hard; X10 XPERIA.
Mount Soche
09-23 12:07 PM
I am a July 17th filer and my attorney received my receipts for EAD, AP and AOS on September 18th. The attorney says I should get my copy of the receipts but I haven't received anything as of today (September 23rd). Lawyer gave me receipt numbers and will send me a copy but I don't think it is necessary to have the originals.
hairstyles sony ericsson xperia x8 pink
m.e.g.
04-01 01:22 PM
Ok, sadly there is no option in Illustrator 9. At least nothing convenient like when you go to save. I've tried searching in the preferences for anything that would let me save it as a PDF compatible, but no luck. Guess it finally time to upgrade. :emb:
On the bright side there is a lot of good info on sunnypixels about what happens with gradients, strokes, etc. when you import them into Blend.
Thank you!
Meg
On the bright side there is a lot of good info on sunnypixels about what happens with gradients, strokes, etc. when you import them into Blend.
Thank you!
Meg
jonty_11
11-02 10:51 AM
Folks,
Please don't give wrong information so authoritatively :)
Labor Certification(LC) for Green Card processing has nothing to with Labor Condition Agreement(LCA) attached to H1-B.
If you moved to a different state from intended work place when your employer filed H1-B (extension included), your company need to get a new LCA.
Do not confuse between (Permanent) Labor Certification from Labor Condition Agreement, simply because of the abbreviations(LC vs LCA).
Disclaimer: I'm NOT an immigration specialist. This can not be taken as an immigration advice.
GCisLottery,
Please read posts carefully, as nelsonagn has pointed out..
Please don't give wrong information so authoritatively :)
Labor Certification(LC) for Green Card processing has nothing to with Labor Condition Agreement(LCA) attached to H1-B.
If you moved to a different state from intended work place when your employer filed H1-B (extension included), your company need to get a new LCA.
Do not confuse between (Permanent) Labor Certification from Labor Condition Agreement, simply because of the abbreviations(LC vs LCA).
Disclaimer: I'm NOT an immigration specialist. This can not be taken as an immigration advice.
GCisLottery,
Please read posts carefully, as nelsonagn has pointed out..
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
No comments:
Post a Comment