eager_immi
07-18 11:01 AM
Common guys!!!
wallpaper derrick rose dunks on zach
harishgowda
05-19 08:08 AM
Hello,
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
mrajatish
09-02 11:54 AM
Let us restart the Washington state chapter - all interested volunteers, please email me at mrajatish@gmail.com to kickstart the process.
-Raj
-Raj
2011 derrick rose dunking on.
ujjwal_p
06-10 02:19 AM
Received RFE for primary applicant (myself) and spouse.
Please submit evidence of lawful presence from October 1998 until August 17, 2007.
The documents may include the following:
A) a photo copy of form I-797 for all extensions and change of status
B) photo copy of form I-20 or IAP66 school records (front and back) including all school annotations
c) Photocopy (front and back) of applicant's Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record
Below is my immigration timeline
CLASS ------ VALID FROM ------ VALID TO ------ Comments
H1-B -------- 5/16/1995 -------- 5/17/1998
H1-B -------- 5/17/1998 -------- 5/17/2001
H1-B -------- 12/23/1999 ------- 6/30/2001
H1-B -------- 7/1/2001 --------- 9/30/2001
0-1 --------- 10/3/2001 ------ 10/1/2004 ------ Stamped in Chennai
EAD --------- 8/4/2004 -------- 8/3/2005 ------- EB1 denied 1/15/2005
0-1 --------- 5/13/2005 ------- 5/12/2008 ------ Stamped in Chennai
0-1 --------- 4/3/2007 --------- 3/13/2010
0-1 ---------- 5/2/2207 --------- 5/12/2009
After 1/15/05 (EB-1 denial)
- Left the country on 6/15/05 (less than 6 months)
- During this time, applied for O-1 visa and got approved
- Got visa stamping in Chennai with O-1 visa
Do you see any issues with my response ?
Pretty long timeline and multiple visa types. Not sure how O-1 works and whether it is a dual intent visa. In any case, looks like the RFE is pretty straight forward and they only need the historical documents, possibly because the record is pretty long.
**- This is not legal advise.
Please submit evidence of lawful presence from October 1998 until August 17, 2007.
The documents may include the following:
A) a photo copy of form I-797 for all extensions and change of status
B) photo copy of form I-20 or IAP66 school records (front and back) including all school annotations
c) Photocopy (front and back) of applicant's Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record
Below is my immigration timeline
CLASS ------ VALID FROM ------ VALID TO ------ Comments
H1-B -------- 5/16/1995 -------- 5/17/1998
H1-B -------- 5/17/1998 -------- 5/17/2001
H1-B -------- 12/23/1999 ------- 6/30/2001
H1-B -------- 7/1/2001 --------- 9/30/2001
0-1 --------- 10/3/2001 ------ 10/1/2004 ------ Stamped in Chennai
EAD --------- 8/4/2004 -------- 8/3/2005 ------- EB1 denied 1/15/2005
0-1 --------- 5/13/2005 ------- 5/12/2008 ------ Stamped in Chennai
0-1 --------- 4/3/2007 --------- 3/13/2010
0-1 ---------- 5/2/2207 --------- 5/12/2009
After 1/15/05 (EB-1 denial)
- Left the country on 6/15/05 (less than 6 months)
- During this time, applied for O-1 visa and got approved
- Got visa stamping in Chennai with O-1 visa
Do you see any issues with my response ?
Pretty long timeline and multiple visa types. Not sure how O-1 works and whether it is a dual intent visa. In any case, looks like the RFE is pretty straight forward and they only need the historical documents, possibly because the record is pretty long.
**- This is not legal advise.
more...
piyu7444
04-01 02:32 PM
What was your exact PD (Day?) Nov 21 2006
2. Which service center did you file with? Texas
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW? No special category and I filed on Jul 1 and my application reached USCIS on Jul 2
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country? India and no crosscharge.........
Hope this helps..
2. Which service center did you file with? Texas
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW? No special category and I filed on Jul 1 and my application reached USCIS on Jul 2
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country? India and no crosscharge.........
Hope this helps..
CADude
11-08 12:46 PM
per USCIS released information approx 655K AOS pending application as of end of Sept 2007.
It's also has 281K EAD & 188K AP pending applications.
So long way to go for GC journey...
Source: http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Septem ber07.pdf
It's also has 281K EAD & 188K AP pending applications.
So long way to go for GC journey...
Source: http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Septem ber07.pdf
more...
c9411010
08-04 03:29 PM
guys many of us are considering going back to india.. any idea on whether those who have 40 credits will be eligible for social security from india...
also any adivice o what is the best way to transfer 401 to india.. withdraw immeditately or wait till 591/2 years..
also any adivice o what is the best way to transfer 401 to india.. withdraw immeditately or wait till 591/2 years..
2010 derrick rose dunking on dragic
vxg
01-02 09:35 AM
I asked the same question to my attorney as last time my wife was stuck in name check in H-4 stamping. This time she was on H-1 and I asked the attorney that if she goes for H-1 and H-1 get's delayed or denied can she use AP without affecting the GC and his answer was Yes. The AP should have an approval date before she left the country i.e. AP should be approved while she was in US.
Happy New Year!
My new year begins with another immigration issue..need some urgent advice.
My wife went to the US Consulate in Chennai today for her first time H-1 stamping. She completed her Phd in Biology from the US and has been working for almost a year for a US biotech company. The consular officer has asked her to submit additional information -221(g); mostly about her job and the company. I can't understand it! Most of the information asked has already been submitted to the INS in reponse to a H-1 RFE.
My wife has an Advance Parole document and EAD based on my I-485 application.
Can you suggest options for her?
1. can she forget about the H-1, not respond to the 221(g) and travel back on advance parole and start working on EAD?
2. If after submission of 221(g) her visa gets rejected, can she still use the Advance Parole to travel to US and work on her EAD?
3. Any other options/advice?
Happy New Year!
My new year begins with another immigration issue..need some urgent advice.
My wife went to the US Consulate in Chennai today for her first time H-1 stamping. She completed her Phd in Biology from the US and has been working for almost a year for a US biotech company. The consular officer has asked her to submit additional information -221(g); mostly about her job and the company. I can't understand it! Most of the information asked has already been submitted to the INS in reponse to a H-1 RFE.
My wife has an Advance Parole document and EAD based on my I-485 application.
Can you suggest options for her?
1. can she forget about the H-1, not respond to the 221(g) and travel back on advance parole and start working on EAD?
2. If after submission of 221(g) her visa gets rejected, can she still use the Advance Parole to travel to US and work on her EAD?
3. Any other options/advice?
more...
gc007
01-07 10:38 PM
I wud just like to add that shud you travel and use your current visa your new I-94 will be stamped with date June 07. Then you have to extend you H-4 and your old approval will not be valid.
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Have a great trip
Thank you very much .
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Have a great trip
Thank you very much .
hair derrick rose dunking. derrick
cool_guy_onnet1
11-21 02:09 PM
I am in a big,actually huge problem, Filed for EAD/AP and got it.
Now I may loose my job in next month-
My wife will be here sometime this month on h4- but she does not have an AP since we were not married when the dates were current. So lets say If I jump on EAD/AP -
what happens to her status? How can she travel? She does not have AP and obviously, her H4 shall become void if I loose this job. Horrible situation especially considering it's the holiday season.
PLEASE HELP!!!!!!
I've been IV member since it's formation and have contributed everymonth!
PLEASE GUYS PLEASE HELP
Now I may loose my job in next month-
My wife will be here sometime this month on h4- but she does not have an AP since we were not married when the dates were current. So lets say If I jump on EAD/AP -
what happens to her status? How can she travel? She does not have AP and obviously, her H4 shall become void if I loose this job. Horrible situation especially considering it's the holiday season.
PLEASE HELP!!!!!!
I've been IV member since it's formation and have contributed everymonth!
PLEASE GUYS PLEASE HELP
more...
MahaBharatGC
10-13 11:45 AM
But ksircar, instead of accepting can't we raise red flags to USCIS?
This is going to be an issue for lot of folks who all filed for I-485 in the last year July fiasco. We will be forced renew every time. Only by giving 2 years is just a temporary postponement but not solving the real problem.
It is like Drivers Lincense renewal. If you have your documentation and you have been driving legally should be granted renewal instantly. Why can't they do the same thing with EAD?
This is going to be an issue for lot of folks who all filed for I-485 in the last year July fiasco. We will be forced renew every time. Only by giving 2 years is just a temporary postponement but not solving the real problem.
It is like Drivers Lincense renewal. If you have your documentation and you have been driving legally should be granted renewal instantly. Why can't they do the same thing with EAD?
hot derrick rose in action.
immigrant2007
09-13 12:30 PM
EB2 and EB3 at one point were in the same boat. Now that EB2 is advancing and is way ahead of EB3, the EB3 applicants are upset and angry. Their anger is very much justified. However, their anger should not be directed towards EB2 applicants.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
I agree and plead to everyone (I really beg to everyone of you please do not fight) lets support each other. Someone is going to get GC earlier than others. Lets not feel bad about it. And I request everyone in EB2 and EB1 to support all backlogs victims.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
I agree and plead to everyone (I really beg to everyone of you please do not fight) lets support each other. Someone is going to get GC earlier than others. Lets not feel bad about it. And I request everyone in EB2 and EB1 to support all backlogs victims.
more...
house derrick rose dunks on pistons.
vdlrao
08-15 04:45 AM
No I havent got my GC yet.
tattoo kevin durant, derrick rose
desitechie
01-08 07:46 PM
My friend while leaving US he did not surrender the I-94 card. Actually he forgot it at home and the airlines allowed him to board plane without surrendering I-94. What should he do now? Guru's does any one have any experience with such situation? Please help
He needs to send it to the USCIS office in kentucky. you can google and get the address.
He needs to send it to the USCIS office in kentucky. you can google and get the address.
more...
pictures Derrick Rose, Dunks,
HRPRO
01-18 09:30 AM
H-1B is the responsibility of the employer but it is slightly tricky. If the employee is being paid more than the minimum wage quoted, then he/she can be made liable to pay back the full amount. But still attorney fees and other associated costs can be collected back from the employee.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
dresses derrick rose dunking on
nb_des
04-14 11:51 AM
My LC is still in process after auditing (EB2). My employer wants to 'drastically' cut back my salary due the national depression, which is particularly affecting the field my company is operating in (sub-primes). If he does that, and I accept it, is LC in jeopardy? We filed back in September 2007 with a certain salary and now it will be lower. Do we have to communicate the change to the DOL? And if yes, what will happen? Do we have to re-file? Thank you to everybody for all the info you can give me! Really!:(
I think GC and your LC is for future job and as long as employer has ability to pay based on their financials it should be fine. But again I am no expert check with your immigration lawyer.
I think GC and your LC is for future job and as long as employer has ability to pay based on their financials it should be fine. But again I am no expert check with your immigration lawyer.
more...
makeup then Derrick Rose dunked
bluez25
07-16 01:58 AM
i guess I am going to be in trouble in case I have to get a new PCC. I will try and get a new one when I reach India. Also update to my status is that chennai consulate has sent a letter to my local address in India about the interview appointment date.
girlfriend derrick rose dunks on barbosa.
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
hairstyles the Slam Dunk contest by
NyteStarNyne
11-23 12:41 AM
Woo hoo!
Some really great entries here. Good luck everyone :D
Some really great entries here. Good luck everyone :D
ab2k7
07-05 04:19 PM
Thanks for your response, paisa. Does that mean start over the whole process from LC for GC again? As per this doc there is a difference b/w LCA for H1B and LC for GC. So incase a H1B employee files LC for GC, does he also need to maintain LCA in parallel? This is still not clear to me.
I've found this doc from
www.lawmh.com/practice_areas/pdfs/H-1B%20Visas.pdf
'
Labor Condition Application (“LCA”): This document attests to the DOL that the employer will pay the prevailing wage and that hiring the H-1B worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. The LCA must be certified by the DOL, and included in the H-1B package. The LCA process is now streamlined with the use of electronic filings. LCAs can be obtained in a matter of seconds. NOTE: The LCA is not the same as Labor Certification for green card purposes. For an LCA in connection with an H-1B, there is no need to advertise the job or to test the labor market
for U.S. workers.
'
Would appreciate if someone can shed some light.
Thanks in advance.
I've found this doc from
www.lawmh.com/practice_areas/pdfs/H-1B%20Visas.pdf
'
Labor Condition Application (“LCA”): This document attests to the DOL that the employer will pay the prevailing wage and that hiring the H-1B worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. The LCA must be certified by the DOL, and included in the H-1B package. The LCA process is now streamlined with the use of electronic filings. LCAs can be obtained in a matter of seconds. NOTE: The LCA is not the same as Labor Certification for green card purposes. For an LCA in connection with an H-1B, there is no need to advertise the job or to test the labor market
for U.S. workers.
'
Would appreciate if someone can shed some light.
Thanks in advance.
Curious_Techie
09-30 10:54 AM
Yes NSC with WAC receipt.
EB2-I PD Aug 2005.
I did applied for EAD & AP renewal in mid August.
Still on H1B. 2010 validity
EB2-I PD Aug 2005.
I did applied for EAD & AP renewal in mid August.
Still on H1B. 2010 validity
No comments:
Post a Comment