cygent
06-11 07:19 PM
Based on this situation, if Company does not revoke your I-140, but closes it's doors, what happens? Does that preclude that the 140 is null void?
You are now working for Company B with 3yr H1-B, and porting the old PD.
Does anybody know?
You are now working for Company B with 3yr H1-B, and porting the old PD.
Does anybody know?
wallpaper Brigitte Bardot Hairstyles
h1techSlave
05-14 12:19 PM
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feeling also.
Morning is over. We all are in mourning since the bulletin went out...
Morning is over. We all are in mourning since the bulletin went out...
Ann Ruben
04-23 10:48 AM
If you are subject to the two-year home residence requirement, you cannot be granted H-1 status until a 212(e) waiver is granted. However, your employer can file an H-1 petition for you now. Once the petition is approved, AND the waiver is granted, you can either file with USCIS for a change of status, or you can apply for an H-1 visa abroad.
2011 rigitte bardot
vejella
08-01 11:07 PM
2008 quota can never be used in 2007.
I mean most of the 2008 quote WILL BE used not already been used..
I mean most of the 2008 quote WILL BE used not already been used..
more...
martinvisalaw
04-26 04:25 PM
I agree with the posters who say that the employer is probably trying to frighten you. It is very difficult to restrict a person's right to work wherever they want - or to restrict an employer hiring whoever they want - especially in Texas. However, it is not really an immigration question. You or, ideally the client company, should see an employment lawyer here in Texas.
eb3retro
06-19 10:07 PM
Hi
Here is my situation
My current labor shows title as Systems Analyst (EB3-I category - PD Sept 2002). The code that I can read shows 030-167014.
I-140 is approved in 2005. 485 Applied in June 2007.
8th year on H1B - H1 Valid till November 2009.
I have offer to join one of big 5 IT Firms as Project Manager( working at client through them from past 4 years), however due to the "Same or Similar" clause , I am confused and kind of nervous as well that it may impact my GC application as the job title is not similar to what is on the labor.
This is great company to work for and Salary raise is about 15-20% from current and about 90% higher than what is on the labor. Would this create any issue?
I had kind of made up my mind that I will go ahead and join and skip notifying USCIS of AC21 and will deal with it if and when I receive the RFE, but the prospective employer's immigration guys are telling that they have policy and their attorney will prepare a letter for invoking AC21 and send that to USCIS.
Just tired of waiting for GC and losing the opportunities, What options do I have ?
� Should I stay put and continue to wait till I get GC in hand?
� If new employer notify USCIS with AC21 letter that my new title is PM or something else (but not same or similar to what is on Labor)
- Would USCIS makes the decision on my 485 right there saying it's a no go?
- or Would they send me the RFE later on when my PD is current?
- What if I say I am willing to go back to my old employer on the title that is on the labor, in the situation of RFE - would USCIS accepts that (I have good relationship with my current employer and they are mid size company)
Any Suggestion - Anybody?
Need to make the decision in next couple of days.
hey man, if i were you, i wouldn't do this..i personally changed jobs twice in ac21 and would not do this change..
Here is my situation
My current labor shows title as Systems Analyst (EB3-I category - PD Sept 2002). The code that I can read shows 030-167014.
I-140 is approved in 2005. 485 Applied in June 2007.
8th year on H1B - H1 Valid till November 2009.
I have offer to join one of big 5 IT Firms as Project Manager( working at client through them from past 4 years), however due to the "Same or Similar" clause , I am confused and kind of nervous as well that it may impact my GC application as the job title is not similar to what is on the labor.
This is great company to work for and Salary raise is about 15-20% from current and about 90% higher than what is on the labor. Would this create any issue?
I had kind of made up my mind that I will go ahead and join and skip notifying USCIS of AC21 and will deal with it if and when I receive the RFE, but the prospective employer's immigration guys are telling that they have policy and their attorney will prepare a letter for invoking AC21 and send that to USCIS.
Just tired of waiting for GC and losing the opportunities, What options do I have ?
� Should I stay put and continue to wait till I get GC in hand?
� If new employer notify USCIS with AC21 letter that my new title is PM or something else (but not same or similar to what is on Labor)
- Would USCIS makes the decision on my 485 right there saying it's a no go?
- or Would they send me the RFE later on when my PD is current?
- What if I say I am willing to go back to my old employer on the title that is on the labor, in the situation of RFE - would USCIS accepts that (I have good relationship with my current employer and they are mid size company)
Any Suggestion - Anybody?
Need to make the decision in next couple of days.
hey man, if i were you, i wouldn't do this..i personally changed jobs twice in ac21 and would not do this change..
more...
meridiani.planum
07-12 08:35 AM
As long as your old I140 is not withdrawn, you can file 485. I think even if it is withdrawn, there still might be a chance, check with your NEW lawyer.
if the I-140 is withdrawn, its too late to file a 485. If its not withdrawn, he can go ahead and file a 485, but would need the co-operation of that employer (employment verification letter)
if the I-140 is withdrawn, its too late to file a 485. If its not withdrawn, he can go ahead and file a 485, but would need the co-operation of that employer (employment verification letter)
2010 beautiful Brigitte Bardot
glen
05-17 09:43 AM
With approved I-140 H1-B extension can certainly be done .
For 365-day period one can take out the days he/she has been away from US for work, vacation,etc. Check immigration-law.com for this.
My question to my valuable friends is that if I've filed PERM well before 365 days (i.e. the last year) but it was denied and then i refiled another PERM after the 365-day period was started, then would I still be able to renew my H1 based upon filed PERM or approved I-140 or what? :confused:
For 365-day period one can take out the days he/she has been away from US for work, vacation,etc. Check immigration-law.com for this.
My question to my valuable friends is that if I've filed PERM well before 365 days (i.e. the last year) but it was denied and then i refiled another PERM after the 365-day period was started, then would I still be able to renew my H1 based upon filed PERM or approved I-140 or what? :confused:
more...
Nil
06-16 08:52 AM
^^^^^^^^
hair of Brigitte Bardot hair
mambarg
07-27 06:58 PM
Is your question about Approved 140 or Pending 140.
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
more...
chi_shark
03-30 09:34 AM
yawn!
Ok sorry if I post this in the wrong place. So I married my wife in 2004 and we began the immigration fillings right away. so you know I was turned away at the border in 2000 because I was going to stay with my wife and her family for 3 months.
When they asked why they would put me up for that long, I told them they were like my adopted family. they still turned me away saying that the money I had at the time $300 was not enough to support my self for that time. this was summer break from school. So that is from my record and the officer who interviewed me wrote in his report that I intended to be adopted for immigration purposes. I think he just mis understood me. ok so that is in the noid. when we went to the first interview the woman was hostile towards my wife and I asking about our age and how we met we are 22 years apart in age. we provided her with documents some bills, photos and joint bank account statement. this is all we had in the first 4 months of out marriage. she asked repeatedly why we had not made any major joint purchases Why we didn't have joint health care. both because I had just started working and had not saved money yet.
We had a second interview to which we took the same documents and more. This interview was short. The interviewer was professional and asked alot of yes and yes questions and would stop us from going on more then that. he said that he had to talk with his supervisor and we would hear from him with in six months. So nothing from them from them for 4 years I called the help line once a year and kept up my EAD and worked full time. Then 2 guys showed up and asked to be showed around the house. we let them in and they interviewed us they took some photos and said have a good day.
Then 6 months later we received our first NOID. Stating that I had been turned away the one time and that I had said I was to be adopted. That I was in a relationship with a person that does not exists. They pointed out that there were photos of my wife with her ex-husband on the walls.
So we go see some lawyers talk to like 6 of them and picked the one who seemed best. talked to people in out community friends who had immigrated. ects. so his plan was to withdraw and file anew to get a fresh first interview. So we refiled with a stack of documents 4 inches thick. insurance, all of our bill, tax returns, car payments. anything we could think of.
So we get anther interview dude takes us back to his office. asked me the basic security questions. and sent me away. Then told my wife and lawyer that the first filing was denied and letters sent. and that they never received our letter withdrawing the first filing. we never received their denial letter. He said he would review out case and the new documents. he sent a NOID for the second filing like 4 months later. So we responded to the noid with a letter from my wife and I refuting the noid line by line. And with letters from friends PHD professors at the local collages. about 10 - 15 all in all and we have not had a reply from them. So the layer said that we had to wait on the USCIS to make the next move. is this so is there anything we can do to move this along? should we switch lawyers? we really like the man we have but I dont know its been over a year now.
sorry for the poor grammar its really late here. thanks for your health.
Ok sorry if I post this in the wrong place. So I married my wife in 2004 and we began the immigration fillings right away. so you know I was turned away at the border in 2000 because I was going to stay with my wife and her family for 3 months.
When they asked why they would put me up for that long, I told them they were like my adopted family. they still turned me away saying that the money I had at the time $300 was not enough to support my self for that time. this was summer break from school. So that is from my record and the officer who interviewed me wrote in his report that I intended to be adopted for immigration purposes. I think he just mis understood me. ok so that is in the noid. when we went to the first interview the woman was hostile towards my wife and I asking about our age and how we met we are 22 years apart in age. we provided her with documents some bills, photos and joint bank account statement. this is all we had in the first 4 months of out marriage. she asked repeatedly why we had not made any major joint purchases Why we didn't have joint health care. both because I had just started working and had not saved money yet.
We had a second interview to which we took the same documents and more. This interview was short. The interviewer was professional and asked alot of yes and yes questions and would stop us from going on more then that. he said that he had to talk with his supervisor and we would hear from him with in six months. So nothing from them from them for 4 years I called the help line once a year and kept up my EAD and worked full time. Then 2 guys showed up and asked to be showed around the house. we let them in and they interviewed us they took some photos and said have a good day.
Then 6 months later we received our first NOID. Stating that I had been turned away the one time and that I had said I was to be adopted. That I was in a relationship with a person that does not exists. They pointed out that there were photos of my wife with her ex-husband on the walls.
So we go see some lawyers talk to like 6 of them and picked the one who seemed best. talked to people in out community friends who had immigrated. ects. so his plan was to withdraw and file anew to get a fresh first interview. So we refiled with a stack of documents 4 inches thick. insurance, all of our bill, tax returns, car payments. anything we could think of.
So we get anther interview dude takes us back to his office. asked me the basic security questions. and sent me away. Then told my wife and lawyer that the first filing was denied and letters sent. and that they never received our letter withdrawing the first filing. we never received their denial letter. He said he would review out case and the new documents. he sent a NOID for the second filing like 4 months later. So we responded to the noid with a letter from my wife and I refuting the noid line by line. And with letters from friends PHD professors at the local collages. about 10 - 15 all in all and we have not had a reply from them. So the layer said that we had to wait on the USCIS to make the next move. is this so is there anything we can do to move this along? should we switch lawyers? we really like the man we have but I dont know its been over a year now.
sorry for the poor grammar its really late here. thanks for your health.
hot is a hair Brigitte+ardot+
greencardvow
08-03 07:23 PM
Please close this thread.
more...
house Brigitte Bardot Hair Brigitte
GCwaitforever
02-27 03:46 PM
I will offer a different perspective. There are IT packages for every application nowadays. If you have expertize in your own field (Bio Engineering or Finance for example), try to think of unmet needs in your functional expertize areas and come up with a software product. That will be the best use of your knowledge. And do not forget IV, when your product becomes a big hit and you become a millionaire.;)
tattoo by Brigitte Bardot.
unseenguy
06-16 01:12 AM
I agree with above posters.
Ask for shorter duration visa.
leave siblings out
Show strong financial position to supprt their stay in US
Show strong ties to home country. (leaving siblings out & adding grandparents care is a good thing), but also show strong monetory ties such as property in home country.
Ask for shorter duration visa.
leave siblings out
Show strong financial position to supprt their stay in US
Show strong ties to home country. (leaving siblings out & adding grandparents care is a good thing), but also show strong monetory ties such as property in home country.
more...
pictures of big Sixties hair.
eb3_nepa
07-29 05:42 PM
As far as I know we HAVE NO STAND on the issue.
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
dresses I did a rigitte bardot hair
jchan
05-05 09:59 AM
If this happens it will be a bad news as given environment I 140 approval takes years . Very soon there will be a backlog in I 140 stage.. They are just swaping backlog from one stage to another..
So how can we influence them through this 'public commenting' period? Would that make any change at all?
So how can we influence them through this 'public commenting' period? Would that make any change at all?
more...
makeup L Brigitte Bardot Cheryl Cole
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)
girlfriend Brigitte Bardot amp; Her Bikini
sanjay
01-12 11:00 AM
Suvendra, sent you a private message. Kindly check.
hairstyles by Brigitte Bardot
IndiaNJ
08-20 12:11 PM
My 485 got approved on 8/8/8 , where as wife's case is still pending , my wife called the 1.800 number , they told it has been assigned to the officer , and he has to make a decision.
chanduv23
02-17 08:48 PM
Durbin likes to have it both ways - be perceived as being pro-immigration (for his work on behalf of Hispanic illegal immigrants) but also being the champion of unions. I think he might respond if he starts to get labeled as anti-immigrant. He will not want to start to get the label of being someone who opposes immigrants. But I'd probably stick to the flowers and make it IV's signature. When the media hears about another flower campaign, they'll know something big is up and that the person getting the flowers is being targeted for an important reason.
For some reason this thread caught my attention. Looks like this was discussed sometime back.
Sending flowers once again ???? Is this a good idea :D:D:D
For some reason this thread caught my attention. Looks like this was discussed sometime back.
Sending flowers once again ???? Is this a good idea :D:D:D
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 04:39 PM
Guys,
Lets not repeat this type of threads. We recently had to ban ScratchingHead for similar type of threads. This diverts attention and energy. There are other money related forums and communities available.
Lets not repeat this type of threads. We recently had to ban ScratchingHead for similar type of threads. This diverts attention and energy. There are other money related forums and communities available.
No comments:
Post a Comment