pani_6
08-24 03:42 PM
The situation seems pretty grim...there are about 80 k indian students
coming to the US every year in total about 250-350 k including all international students (I assume) and at least 50% of them want to work after graduation (I assume)..with the h1 cap at 65K(lot of them taken away by consultants) ...and the lots of school funding squeezed because of the war..Most students (I assume) study with no AID hoping to get a job to repay some of the loan/ father's money...
I think prospective students need to know the real situation out here..before
they make a choice of studying here.
I hope this grim situation is temporary...
coming to the US every year in total about 250-350 k including all international students (I assume) and at least 50% of them want to work after graduation (I assume)..with the h1 cap at 65K(lot of them taken away by consultants) ...and the lots of school funding squeezed because of the war..Most students (I assume) study with no AID hoping to get a job to repay some of the loan/ father's money...
I think prospective students need to know the real situation out here..before
they make a choice of studying here.
I hope this grim situation is temporary...
wallpaper Weed Wallpapers - Bongs Bay
desi3933
02-19 10:57 AM
Great piece of info, dude! :)
Just an additional question, what happens if the parents are in the I-485 applied stage and the baby is born outside of US ?
I would call it expensive mistake.
The child has to apply for immigrant visa as follow-to-join, unless, of course, if child is still eligible for H4 visa. In that case, he/she can file for I-485 in the US if the PD is still current.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Just an additional question, what happens if the parents are in the I-485 applied stage and the baby is born outside of US ?
I would call it expensive mistake.
The child has to apply for immigrant visa as follow-to-join, unless, of course, if child is still eligible for H4 visa. In that case, he/she can file for I-485 in the US if the PD is still current.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
krithi
03-22 12:39 PM
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
2011 wallpaper marijuana.
glen
05-04 02:50 PM
As per my understanding you can apply for one year H1-B extension based on LC or wait for I-140 approval till August and then apply for 3 year H1-B extension.
Hi Madhuri,
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Hi Madhuri,
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
more...
perm2gc
12-22 06:08 PM
Efren Hernandez III, Director of the Business and Trade Services Branch at INS in Washington, D.C. announced in late December 2001 that the INS does not recognize or provide any "grace period" for maintaining status after employment termination. Mr. Hernandez explained this strict interpretation by reasoning that there is no difference between H1B holders and other non-immigrants, like students, to justify a stay in the U.S. beyond the explicit purpose of their admission. Mr. Hernandez admits that this may cause hardship to some terminated or laid off H1B workers, but believes that the INS position is legally justified.
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
Soul
05-28 03:19 PM
I don't usually design like this! :P
- Soul :s:
- Soul :s:
more...
truthinspector
01-28 08:12 PM
Although it does not feature in this article, Bush is using the word 'Guest Worker' more often these days. Any opinions about the emphasis on the word 'Guest' these days in Bush's speeches? Is there a covert message there?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_wants_more_young_Indian_minds_in_United_State s/articleshow/1461553.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_wants_more_young_Indian_minds_in_United_State s/articleshow/1461553.cms
2010 orange haze marijuana
raghuram
05-08 04:53 PM
What if you directly send a personal check?
That will take a long time to get cashed. And the Indian bank may charge some additional fees to deposit it there.
That will take a long time to get cashed. And the Indian bank may charge some additional fees to deposit it there.
more...
ram_ram
03-18 04:48 PM
No and as per Murthy chat questions many employers do not do anything with I-140.
hair #39;Cannabis Leaf#39; is made by
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
americandesi
06-17 11:48 PM
There is an option in US Greencard called “Commuter Permanent Resident Card”. Refer the link below for more details
http://www.lanepowell.com/pressroom/pubs/pdfold/bc_2002_0005.pdf
This GC allows you to live in Canada/Mexico and commute to United States for work. Though you are loosing the year count towards US Citizenship with this GC, I think it’s a better option for anyone who wants to apply for citizenship in both countries.
(ie) Convert the regular Permanent resident card to “Commuter Permanent Resident Card” (Form I-90) -> Live in canada and commute to work in US for the next 3 years (Windsor-Detroit) -> get the canadian citizenship after 3 years -> convert the “Commuter Permanent Resident Card” to regular Permanent resident card (Form I-90) and settle down in US -> Get the US citizenship after 5 years.
The advantage with this approach is that you earn in US dollars though you live in Canada during the first 3 years.
http://www.lanepowell.com/pressroom/pubs/pdfold/bc_2002_0005.pdf
This GC allows you to live in Canada/Mexico and commute to United States for work. Though you are loosing the year count towards US Citizenship with this GC, I think it’s a better option for anyone who wants to apply for citizenship in both countries.
(ie) Convert the regular Permanent resident card to “Commuter Permanent Resident Card” (Form I-90) -> Live in canada and commute to work in US for the next 3 years (Windsor-Detroit) -> get the canadian citizenship after 3 years -> convert the “Commuter Permanent Resident Card” to regular Permanent resident card (Form I-90) and settle down in US -> Get the US citizenship after 5 years.
The advantage with this approach is that you earn in US dollars though you live in Canada during the first 3 years.
hot cannabis wallpaper. Hemp wallpaper
clifford
02-03 05:43 PM
Probably 1929 depression and current times are not similar. So BTW were those 400K maxicans holding any type of Visa ? Currently as far I know all the 65K H1b Patitions were approved, I do not know for what reason ? If situation was that bad may be only 10,000 k could have been approved and limit could be dropped to 15k for say a period of next 5 years. I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. The Anti H1 wave was probably started by Nobel Laureate Obama when he pointed to Bangalore and then Lou Dobbs and then Senator Grassley and so on. Now if you look at job boards it is clearly mentioned by many job postings "Please no H1Bs".
Lets not forget that H1B had been misused by many desi firms as well.
Lets not forget that H1B had been misused by many desi firms as well.
more...
house Cannabis: 800x600 (.jpg, 371KB
blizkreeg
01-26 12:44 PM
Seriously, who cares that Andhra bagged 7 ranks. How on earth is it relevant to the discussion going on here? Plus this isn't a forum for Indians only(and I'm Indian).
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
tattoo wallpaper cannabis. cannabis wallpaper. wallpapers
kaisersose
08-01 01:09 PM
Wishful thinking.
1. All they did in June was to assign visa numbers to already processed 485 applications. These cases were fully processed and were just awaiting visa numbers for approval. They could have just as easily assigned 4 million visa numbers in that time frame. Hence, this June activity has no bearing on actual 485 processing time as this also includes security checks (can run into years) which are not in the hands of of the USCIS.
2. Rajiv Khanna says not all visa numbers for the fiscal year are made available on Oct 01. Visa numbers are released in limited batches for the first 3 quarters. It is only during the last quarter (July-September) that DOS is allowed to go to town and release all pending numbers of that year.
1. All they did in June was to assign visa numbers to already processed 485 applications. These cases were fully processed and were just awaiting visa numbers for approval. They could have just as easily assigned 4 million visa numbers in that time frame. Hence, this June activity has no bearing on actual 485 processing time as this also includes security checks (can run into years) which are not in the hands of of the USCIS.
2. Rajiv Khanna says not all visa numbers for the fiscal year are made available on Oct 01. Visa numbers are released in limited batches for the first 3 quarters. It is only during the last quarter (July-September) that DOS is allowed to go to town and release all pending numbers of that year.
more...
pictures Cannabis Battery Charger for
mps
04-21 02:25 PM
I got the Card Production Ordered e-mail today. No LUD even last night at 1 Am. Only one LUD today. My case is processed at Texas service center. And my receipt date is not with in their processing times.
Good luck to everyone.
Congratulations on getting your GC !!!
I need to ask you a question as I don't see on LUD after FP in 485. However LUD changed on my approved I-140.
Was there any LUD on I-140 case after your FP?
Regards
Good luck to everyone.
Congratulations on getting your GC !!!
I need to ask you a question as I don't see on LUD after FP in 485. However LUD changed on my approved I-140.
Was there any LUD on I-140 case after your FP?
Regards
dresses cannabis wallpaper. cannabis wallpaper. Cannabis Wallpaper 2; Cannabis
jonty_11
06-16 02:04 PM
Thank you rsdang..
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Making phone calls is crucial to this process....just do your part...and leave the rest to IV.. They are forcefully pursuing our interests...Please call !!!!!!
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Making phone calls is crucial to this process....just do your part...and leave the rest to IV.. They are forcefully pursuing our interests...Please call !!!!!!
more...
makeup marijuana wallpapers.
raju123
05-16 12:53 PM
^^^^^ Bumping up
girlfriend (cannabis) Wallpaper
senthil
08-08 09:05 AM
roseball, agree. got same resp from my attorney while filing AOS for my wife
1) employment letter ( just sent original & copies too )
2) I-134 ( convinced that they will need this even for H4 dependent )
3) did not ask for W2's or pay stubs
4) of course original medicals in closed envelope
5) all previous H4 approvals + I94's and color photocopy of entire passport
6) photos and required cheque's
hope mrdelhiite is all set ?
Yes, its good to file I-134 especially when she is on H4. Paystubs and tax returns are not required documents though a lot of people tend to submit them. Just an employment letter from your employer would suffice. You dont need to include your I-20 with your wife's application....However, do include her medicals, though its not part of the initial evidence......
1) employment letter ( just sent original & copies too )
2) I-134 ( convinced that they will need this even for H4 dependent )
3) did not ask for W2's or pay stubs
4) of course original medicals in closed envelope
5) all previous H4 approvals + I94's and color photocopy of entire passport
6) photos and required cheque's
hope mrdelhiite is all set ?
Yes, its good to file I-134 especially when she is on H4. Paystubs and tax returns are not required documents though a lot of people tend to submit them. Just an employment letter from your employer would suffice. You dont need to include your I-20 with your wife's application....However, do include her medicals, though its not part of the initial evidence......
hairstyles wallpaper cannabis. marijuana wallpapers. cannabis
sb15
01-31 10:25 PM
Thanks for your time guys...just curious hopefully SB can help me...how do I find out my I-140 subcategory(skilled category or Professional).In my I-140 receipt notice under section it mentioned as Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)
If your i-140 reciept mentions 'Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)' Then you are good to go.....dont worry about it was applied as skilled worker.... you should not have any problem in getting the approval again if you company financial status is good..
All the best..
BTW what is your service center, NSC or Texas ?
Thanks
sb
If your i-140 reciept mentions 'Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)' Then you are good to go.....dont worry about it was applied as skilled worker.... you should not have any problem in getting the approval again if you company financial status is good..
All the best..
BTW what is your service center, NSC or Texas ?
Thanks
sb
Aah_GC
09-21 11:14 PM
Thanks...your replies were compassionate and philosophical in a way.
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
IMO I think that is a question only you can answer. Since we are all chasing some thing or the other -- it makes sense to enjoy the journey, see how we can be happy today and let nature take its course. For some going back to India makes most sense, for some probably not. Either way, the decisions that we take should be based out of our own individual purpose and desires than be guided by externals.
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
IMO I think that is a question only you can answer. Since we are all chasing some thing or the other -- it makes sense to enjoy the journey, see how we can be happy today and let nature take its course. For some going back to India makes most sense, for some probably not. Either way, the decisions that we take should be based out of our own individual purpose and desires than be guided by externals.
sareesh
04-21 12:12 PM
I understand your problem with moving dates slowly but did not follow your problem with porting.
Thanks,
SG.
There was lot of talk in the past about lawsuit against USCIS against Porting and moving dates slowly etc.
Has anything been done yet?
Thanks,
SG.
There was lot of talk in the past about lawsuit against USCIS against Porting and moving dates slowly etc.
Has anything been done yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment