rally
07-13 03:04 PM
Dont we need to wear saris and dhotis , we are followers of Gandhian principles ?
wallpaper enazir bhutto hot pictures. makeup www enazir hutto hot
gccovet
08-22 03:09 PM
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
The firm is trying to milk you. looks like better switch the lawyer, appears to be greedy.
my 2 cents...
GCCovet
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
The firm is trying to milk you. looks like better switch the lawyer, appears to be greedy.
my 2 cents...
GCCovet
phillyag
07-20 02:15 PM
If I have applied for 485 can I still do that ?
2011 premier Benazir Bhutto,
ChainReaction
04-18 09:09 AM
I already have two labor certification petition both of which are stuck in PBEC. MY first labor cert has PD of March 2003 and the other Feb 2005 . ON my lawyers advice i filed my second labor under RIR instead of waiting for another month and filing under PERM what a big mistake i made... I am onmy 5th yr on H1b and was hoping to Get at least 3yr ext if i was able to file 1-140 and have it approved before i file for the H1b . :(
more...
wonderlust
10-04 11:50 PM
I believe it is random and chaotic. WORSE, we have been powerless to control or improve it. That is why we need to work together and make our voice heard!
Wonderlust
I am sure you are a latest filers...so just relax and forget abt it for many yrs to come unless there is a serious effort by the Govt. to reduce backlog...till then elax and dotn let your blood boil over it leading to deterioration in health and wealth....
NJOY !!!
Wonderlust
I am sure you are a latest filers...so just relax and forget abt it for many yrs to come unless there is a serious effort by the Govt. to reduce backlog...till then elax and dotn let your blood boil over it leading to deterioration in health and wealth....
NJOY !!!
surabhi
04-08 05:24 AM
This is serious and could affect quite a few.
Summary: you could be affected if ALL of the folllowing is true
1)you have a PD before July 16, 2007 ( likely case is EB3 I/C 2002/2003 PD)
2) you have left your original employer ( whether you stayed for 180 days after I-485 application to comply with AC-21 rule doesnt matter)
3) your original employer has used your labor to subsititute some on else ( before July 16,2007)
Remember you are affected even though you are the original beneficiary.
How did this case happen?
This happend because USCIS not following LIFO processing
1. The original applicat applied labor in April 2001
2. Labor approved in Jan 2002
3. Original applicant applied I-140 in April 2002
4. i-140 approved in July 2002
5. Original applicant applies for I-485 in Dec 2002
In Jan 2004, after more than year ( > 180 days and Ac-21 was enacted), original applicant leaves the employer, presuming that she is safe and covered under Ac-21
Employer promptly writes to USCIS asking to revoke I-140. The employer goes ahead and uses the labor for another person and files I-140
The USCIS apprves I-140 and subsequently I-485 for the subsituted beneficiary.
So how could USCIS approve a I-485 that was filed at least 18 months later than the original applicant. ( May be the subsituted applicant was from different chargeability country and hence could ge approved??)
Now the original applicant is screwed because USCIS cannnot approve 2 I-485 petitions based on same labor.
I feel for the original applicant. She played by rules all along, but got screwed anyway
Now you can see the chances of your case being caught in similar circumstrances
1. You are EB3, India/China with PD around 2002/2003
2. You filed I-485 sometime before July 2007 ( if you filed during July 2007 and you were with original employer at that time, this doesnt apply)
3. You left your original employer before July 2007
4. Unbeknownst to you, your original employer has subsituted your labor for another person.(before July 16, 2007)
5. that other person also filed for I-1485
6. Now its a timebomb waiting to explode
Summary: you could be affected if ALL of the folllowing is true
1)you have a PD before July 16, 2007 ( likely case is EB3 I/C 2002/2003 PD)
2) you have left your original employer ( whether you stayed for 180 days after I-485 application to comply with AC-21 rule doesnt matter)
3) your original employer has used your labor to subsititute some on else ( before July 16,2007)
Remember you are affected even though you are the original beneficiary.
How did this case happen?
This happend because USCIS not following LIFO processing
1. The original applicat applied labor in April 2001
2. Labor approved in Jan 2002
3. Original applicant applied I-140 in April 2002
4. i-140 approved in July 2002
5. Original applicant applies for I-485 in Dec 2002
In Jan 2004, after more than year ( > 180 days and Ac-21 was enacted), original applicant leaves the employer, presuming that she is safe and covered under Ac-21
Employer promptly writes to USCIS asking to revoke I-140. The employer goes ahead and uses the labor for another person and files I-140
The USCIS apprves I-140 and subsequently I-485 for the subsituted beneficiary.
So how could USCIS approve a I-485 that was filed at least 18 months later than the original applicant. ( May be the subsituted applicant was from different chargeability country and hence could ge approved??)
Now the original applicant is screwed because USCIS cannnot approve 2 I-485 petitions based on same labor.
I feel for the original applicant. She played by rules all along, but got screwed anyway
Now you can see the chances of your case being caught in similar circumstrances
1. You are EB3, India/China with PD around 2002/2003
2. You filed I-485 sometime before July 2007 ( if you filed during July 2007 and you were with original employer at that time, this doesnt apply)
3. You left your original employer before July 2007
4. Unbeknownst to you, your original employer has subsituted your labor for another person.(before July 16, 2007)
5. that other person also filed for I-1485
6. Now its a timebomb waiting to explode
more...
pappu
03-17 09:18 AM
Check IV wiki. You will find more resources on this topic.
2010 widower of Benazir Bhutto,
styrum
10-26 10:05 PM
I got this as a real paper letter. The signature is a picture, of course, not real.
No surprise here. We are not even a part of immigration reform for him.:mad:
So in this standard reply "about immigration reform" we are not even mentioned.
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
MASSACHUSETTS
Uinited States
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101
October 9, 2007
Dear Mr. :
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. This is a complex issue, with many important aspects, and it requires a comprehensive solution. 12 million undocumented workers are now living in the United States. They're working, paying taxes, and raising children who are U.S. citizens if they are born here. They contribute to our economy, and it is time to bring them out of the shadows and end their unfair exploitation by unscrupulous employers in communities across the country.
Funds for border enforcement have increased dramatically over the years. The budget for the Border Patrol has increased from $263 million in 1990 to $1.6 billion today - a six-fold increase. Yet each year during this period, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have continued to enter the U.S. illegally. Our immigration laws are clearly broken, and stronger border enforcement alone will not fix them.
Long and thorough negotiations with the White House and fellow Senators, Republican and Democrat, led to the drafting of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill this year. It contained important provisions to strengthen border security, but it also contained needed provisions imposing higher penalties on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, a temporary worker program to help American businesses meet their employment needs, and provisions to address the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by allowing them to obtain legal status after undergoing background checks, paying a fine, and going to the back of the line for green cards. The bill was a realistic and comprehensive solution that would not only protect our borders, but also enable needed temporary workers to enter the country legally, and allow workers already here to become legal.
Unfortunately, this needed legislation has now stalled in the Senate, which is enormously disappointing for Congress and the country. But the battle is far from over. I'm in it for the long haul, and Fm certain that, in the end, we will prevail. Ignoring the problem will not solve it. We cannot afford to do nothing, especially in this post-9/11 era. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants, and we must preserve this tradition. I will continue to fight to reform our immigration laws, so that our borders are secure and immigrant families can continue to live the American dream.
Again, thank you for writing to me about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
No surprise here. We are not even a part of immigration reform for him.:mad:
So in this standard reply "about immigration reform" we are not even mentioned.
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
MASSACHUSETTS
Uinited States
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101
October 9, 2007
Dear Mr. :
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. This is a complex issue, with many important aspects, and it requires a comprehensive solution. 12 million undocumented workers are now living in the United States. They're working, paying taxes, and raising children who are U.S. citizens if they are born here. They contribute to our economy, and it is time to bring them out of the shadows and end their unfair exploitation by unscrupulous employers in communities across the country.
Funds for border enforcement have increased dramatically over the years. The budget for the Border Patrol has increased from $263 million in 1990 to $1.6 billion today - a six-fold increase. Yet each year during this period, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have continued to enter the U.S. illegally. Our immigration laws are clearly broken, and stronger border enforcement alone will not fix them.
Long and thorough negotiations with the White House and fellow Senators, Republican and Democrat, led to the drafting of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill this year. It contained important provisions to strengthen border security, but it also contained needed provisions imposing higher penalties on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, a temporary worker program to help American businesses meet their employment needs, and provisions to address the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by allowing them to obtain legal status after undergoing background checks, paying a fine, and going to the back of the line for green cards. The bill was a realistic and comprehensive solution that would not only protect our borders, but also enable needed temporary workers to enter the country legally, and allow workers already here to become legal.
Unfortunately, this needed legislation has now stalled in the Senate, which is enormously disappointing for Congress and the country. But the battle is far from over. I'm in it for the long haul, and Fm certain that, in the end, we will prevail. Ignoring the problem will not solve it. We cannot afford to do nothing, especially in this post-9/11 era. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants, and we must preserve this tradition. I will continue to fight to reform our immigration laws, so that our borders are secure and immigrant families can continue to live the American dream.
Again, thank you for writing to me about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
more...
Gravitation
10-23 10:30 AM
One common misconception is that there's a "quota" for each country. There's none.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
hair Benazir BhuttoNext gt;gt;lt;lt;
gccovet
09-24 04:15 PM
Any thoughts
is she the primary applicant on AOS? If so, to be safe, you may have her continue on H1 (provided employer is willing to file for H1B ac21 aka "transfer").
If she is not prim. applicant and If the employer is not willing to shed the H1 "transfer" money, you may save money by using EAD.
just my thoughts, check with attorney please.
Regards,
GCCovet.
is she the primary applicant on AOS? If so, to be safe, you may have her continue on H1 (provided employer is willing to file for H1B ac21 aka "transfer").
If she is not prim. applicant and If the employer is not willing to shed the H1 "transfer" money, you may save money by using EAD.
just my thoughts, check with attorney please.
Regards,
GCCovet.
more...
lazycis
04-05 02:24 PM
I need some help with my situation. I am currently working for an employer A full time on H-1 B. I-140 Approved (> 180days) and 485 pending (July 2nd filer). I have my EAD. My H-1 is being extended and I have not received my approval notice yet.
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
Can someone please answer my questions? :confused:
1) I am planning on doing a H-1 transfer to employer B. Will it be possible to do H-1 transfer while employer A is extending my H-1?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
3) I have a job code that I used on LC. Should I maintain the same job code for H-1 transfer as well?
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer? :rolleyes:
5) With employer A I make x dollars. LC reflects this pay. When I switch to employer B should I also make only x dollars or can I make more? :eek:
Thanks in advance for you replies.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Does not matter
4. Does not matter unless you are a supervisor over a lot of people
5. Make more, of course!
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
Can someone please answer my questions? :confused:
1) I am planning on doing a H-1 transfer to employer B. Will it be possible to do H-1 transfer while employer A is extending my H-1?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
3) I have a job code that I used on LC. Should I maintain the same job code for H-1 transfer as well?
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer? :rolleyes:
5) With employer A I make x dollars. LC reflects this pay. When I switch to employer B should I also make only x dollars or can I make more? :eek:
Thanks in advance for you replies.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Does not matter
4. Does not matter unless you are a supervisor over a lot of people
5. Make more, of course!
hot enazir bhutto hot
flexi
04-04 01:55 PM
... for your help! Now, what do you guys think about getting paid until the end of June by the 1st employer (but at the same time starting to work inofficially i.e. observing only for the 2nd employer) and then going back to work for a couple of weeks for the 1st employer but staring to get paid by the 2nd so that it's fair for both? Would that be legal? If not, there really isn't a good way to deal with this since the new H1Bs are valid not before Oct (if i'd apply for 2 H1Bs), right? I obviously don't want to jeopardize my visa to make my old employer happy so don't want to do anything that's not completely OK in that regard....
In regards to the timing of a petition for a transfer (leaving all the other stuff above aside for a moment), let's say i'd like to start at the new employer 1st of July - to be on the safe side I should get a lawyer, plan a week for them to get the petition ready and then i'd have to wait a couple weeks for the receipt notice (which then allows me to work for the new employer, correct?) - so that would make it 3 weeks?
Thanks again!
PS: more complicated now???
PPS: germany.... not india.... but would love to go there on the way back :cool:
In regards to the timing of a petition for a transfer (leaving all the other stuff above aside for a moment), let's say i'd like to start at the new employer 1st of July - to be on the safe side I should get a lawyer, plan a week for them to get the petition ready and then i'd have to wait a couple weeks for the receipt notice (which then allows me to work for the new employer, correct?) - so that would make it 3 weeks?
Thanks again!
PS: more complicated now???
PPS: germany.... not india.... but would love to go there on the way back :cool:
more...
house Ms Benazir Bhutto: Afghan
eb_retrogession
01-06 09:32 AM
This is a good effort towards solving the retrogression issue. Like many silent readers, I do have concern about contributing to a new organization.
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
tattoo Remembering Benazir Bhutto
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)
more...
pictures enazir bhutto hot photos.
prinive
02-16 01:14 PM
:rolleyes: Bump
dresses tattoo Benazir BhuttoNext gt
lazycis
05-07 01:22 PM
from AC21 memo issued on December 27, 2005
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
more...
makeup Benazir Bhutto … was
immi_2006
08-07 10:54 AM
Though its not mentioned it is good file I-134. You are not eligible for I-864.
girlfriend hot that Benazir Bhutto was
sanjay02
01-07 06:03 PM
You dont need to inform USCIS about new passport, but make sure you carry your old as well as new passport, dont discard the old passport as yet.
hairstyles enazir bhutto hot.
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 .
newbie123
11-21 02:25 AM
I have similar question as the last one from bhayzone.
+ Myself on H1-B and wife on H4.
+ Both visas are expired now. Have got the new I797s (new expiry in 2011) and planning to go to India in Jan 2010 to get the new visa stamps.
+ But we are planning to apply for my wife's F1 visa instead of renewing her H4.
+ I have my got my I140 approved.
So my question is -
+ Can we schedule our visa interview appointment together - me for H1-B stamping and my wife for F1 stamping?
+ Is it risky to go together?
+ If for some reasons, my wife's F1 application gets rejected, will there be any problem in again applying for her H4 renewal/stamping?
Will appreciate any/all advice.
Regards,
N.
+ Myself on H1-B and wife on H4.
+ Both visas are expired now. Have got the new I797s (new expiry in 2011) and planning to go to India in Jan 2010 to get the new visa stamps.
+ But we are planning to apply for my wife's F1 visa instead of renewing her H4.
+ I have my got my I140 approved.
So my question is -
+ Can we schedule our visa interview appointment together - me for H1-B stamping and my wife for F1 stamping?
+ Is it risky to go together?
+ If for some reasons, my wife's F1 application gets rejected, will there be any problem in again applying for her H4 renewal/stamping?
Will appreciate any/all advice.
Regards,
N.
Waitingnvain
08-04 03:36 PM
I believe one will be eligible for SS after attaining 40 credits. There is no residency requirement. WRT 401K, you might ending up paying a penalty of 10% in addition to 30% tax.
No comments:
Post a Comment