baburob2
11-02 02:42 PM
As per my knowledge, GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
wallpaper All Natural Breast Enhancement
amsgc
04-04 02:10 PM
Signin,
You need to give more information about what whether your wife was able to file I-485 for your wife. If you are from a retrogressed country, then your wife was probably not able to file to adjust status. In that case, she is can change from H4 to F1. After the approval, her status is not dependent on yours, and you can start using EAD.
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
You need to give more information about what whether your wife was able to file I-485 for your wife. If you are from a retrogressed country, then your wife was probably not able to file to adjust status. In that case, she is can change from H4 to F1. After the approval, her status is not dependent on yours, and you can start using EAD.
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
gc_chahiye
10-31 03:25 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong i.e. I can continue working as I have already applied for my H1 extension and whatever the H1 extension response is based on that if it is approved I can stay on H1 else if extension denied for some reason then at that point I can move to EAD and file a new I-9 Form with my employer and continue my work.
Thanks
yes you can continue working. Assuming that USCIS honors the original filing date (ie. they assume that your H1 extension was filed before the previous H1 ran out) and gives you a I-94 in the approval you are all set. Make sure your lawyer includes proof that you filed on time, but to the wrong center. IN the worst case if the extension is denied (or approved without an I-94) you can always move to EAD and continue working. The time you spent working past your original I-94 expiry would however then count as unauthorized.
Thanks
yes you can continue working. Assuming that USCIS honors the original filing date (ie. they assume that your H1 extension was filed before the previous H1 ran out) and gives you a I-94 in the approval you are all set. Make sure your lawyer includes proof that you filed on time, but to the wrong center. IN the worst case if the extension is denied (or approved without an I-94) you can always move to EAD and continue working. The time you spent working past your original I-94 expiry would however then count as unauthorized.
2011 Breast implants have made
dreamworld
10-26 11:57 AM
Hi guys,
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
more...
hiralal
08-14 06:36 AM
this is in response to some who say what if India does this and that ...the point is that India will do nothing. In general we have passive leaders and our PM is a great example of that - if it was done against china then immediately there would have retaliation. in some ways it is good if it stops the misuse ...I guess the biggest losers in this are the lawyers - more lawyer shops will close down
gsc999
04-19 03:59 PM
[QUOTE=boldm28]Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years[/QUOTE
---
baldm28: :p
Cz Raju pays taxes in US.
you wont get any reply not in 100 years[/QUOTE
---
baldm28: :p
Cz Raju pays taxes in US.
more...
dbevis
December 5th, 2003, 11:13 PM
Could you put a link up to that plug in? I really like that.
I was playing around with it again tonight - I posted a couple more examples in the gallery area, under "landscapes".
This is not a plugin, persay. It's a PaintShop Pro script - not PhotoShop. Here's what the script does:
Split to RGB, discard G & B
"Clarify" (twice) at a high value to deepen the contrast range.
Adjusts the luminance channel to further enhance contrast.
Colorizes the image with a hue value of 160 and saturation a low setting of 20 to slightly shift grays towards blues.
I then added the original full-color image in as a layer and merged the two with partial opacity in (I think) "hue" mode.
The Clarify operation gives it an "old" look by accentuating and muddling the contrast. The lumininance adjustment makes the overall appearance more 'harsh'. The shift towards blue tends to simulate a bit of fading (like an old snaphot, I guess).
The painting-like effect comes from merging in the colors from the original.
Here's the actual script file (it's in the "Python" programming language):
--------------------------------------
from JascApp import *
def ScriptProperties():
return {
'Author': '',
'Copyright': '',
'Description': '',
'Host': 'Paint Shop Pro',
'Host Version': '8.00'
}
def Do(Environment):
App.Do( Environment, 'SplitToRGB', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'HistogramAdjustment', {
'LuminanceChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 245,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'LowClipLimit': 2,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'RedChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'GreenChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'BlueChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'TargetChannel': 0,
'OverlayResultHistogram': App.Constants.Boolean.true,
'HistogramEditMode': App.Constants.HistogramEditMode.Luminance,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'IncreaseColorsTo16Million', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Colorize', {
'Hue': 160,
'Saturation': 20,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
I was playing around with it again tonight - I posted a couple more examples in the gallery area, under "landscapes".
This is not a plugin, persay. It's a PaintShop Pro script - not PhotoShop. Here's what the script does:
Split to RGB, discard G & B
"Clarify" (twice) at a high value to deepen the contrast range.
Adjusts the luminance channel to further enhance contrast.
Colorizes the image with a hue value of 160 and saturation a low setting of 20 to slightly shift grays towards blues.
I then added the original full-color image in as a layer and merged the two with partial opacity in (I think) "hue" mode.
The Clarify operation gives it an "old" look by accentuating and muddling the contrast. The lumininance adjustment makes the overall appearance more 'harsh'. The shift towards blue tends to simulate a bit of fading (like an old snaphot, I guess).
The painting-like effect comes from merging in the colors from the original.
Here's the actual script file (it's in the "Python" programming language):
--------------------------------------
from JascApp import *
def ScriptProperties():
return {
'Author': '',
'Copyright': '',
'Description': '',
'Host': 'Paint Shop Pro',
'Host Version': '8.00'
}
def Do(Environment):
App.Do( Environment, 'SplitToRGB', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'HistogramAdjustment', {
'LuminanceChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 245,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'LowClipLimit': 2,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'RedChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'GreenChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'BlueChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'TargetChannel': 0,
'OverlayResultHistogram': App.Constants.Boolean.true,
'HistogramEditMode': App.Constants.HistogramEditMode.Luminance,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'IncreaseColorsTo16Million', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Colorize', {
'Hue': 160,
'Saturation': 20,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
2010 Breast Augmentation Explained.
arjunpa
08-18 11:58 AM
TXH1B,
Are you suggesting that I must exit/re-enter with the new H1B (even if the approval accompanies a I-94 or not - both scenarios) ?
I was planning for that in the worst case, to exit/re-enter through Canada.
I will keep the 245(k) rule in mind. Again, Thanks for the answer.
Are you suggesting that I must exit/re-enter with the new H1B (even if the approval accompanies a I-94 or not - both scenarios) ?
I was planning for that in the worst case, to exit/re-enter through Canada.
I will keep the 245(k) rule in mind. Again, Thanks for the answer.
more...
eb3_2004
04-07 02:01 PM
As far as I know, labor subs was banned in 2007...So if labor was substituted before 2007, we need to worry....Other cases who have 140 and labor intact now need not worry abt this rule for AC21..
Correct me if this is wrong...
Correct me if this is wrong...
hair Beyond Breast Cancer.
arihant
10-26 11:52 AM
I got approval of H1 extension applied on Aug. 06...
Was this premium or regular processing?
Was this premium or regular processing?
more...
meridiani.planum
08-12 05:40 PM
if your applications are pending for over 6 months (approvable and your PD isc urrent for this long), file a writ of mandamus. Thats the only thing I have seen that moves USCIS to approve such old applications that are hiding behind the 'under background check' flag. Note that FBI namecheck is also now required to be completed within 180 days, so there is no excuse for an application to remain approvable but not approved beyond those timelines. talk to a good lawyer and pursue your case aggressively.
hot Inflammatory Breast Cancer
perm2gc
11-04 12:03 AM
Here's my exact situation:
- My employer is company A
- I am assigned by Company A to Company B (corp-to-corp)
- Company B assigned me to Client X
- I want to move to Company Z
- Company Z would assign me to the same Client X
My non-compete clause says something like... Employee(I) cannot work to client of Company A within 1 year of leaving Company A
Now, is client X considered as client of company A? I'm thinking that company B is the client of company A. Thus, it should be okay if I move to company Z and be assigned to client X.
Any thoughts?
you are confusing....
What i understand is that you want to work for the current client with different consulting company than the one you are currently working..you cannot do it as NCA will cover it .
if You want you can fight..its upto you..Consult a good Attorny as our friends here have mentioned..
- My employer is company A
- I am assigned by Company A to Company B (corp-to-corp)
- Company B assigned me to Client X
- I want to move to Company Z
- Company Z would assign me to the same Client X
My non-compete clause says something like... Employee(I) cannot work to client of Company A within 1 year of leaving Company A
Now, is client X considered as client of company A? I'm thinking that company B is the client of company A. Thus, it should be okay if I move to company Z and be assigned to client X.
Any thoughts?
you are confusing....
What i understand is that you want to work for the current client with different consulting company than the one you are currently working..you cannot do it as NCA will cover it .
if You want you can fight..its upto you..Consult a good Attorny as our friends here have mentioned..
more...
house Breast augmentation
pappu
04-10 11:52 AM
Friends,
I am working for company A and I have offer from Company B, I thinking of my options, Here is my situation
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
2. I have approved EAD
3. mine is labor transfer case and I used an existing labor that matched my job profile
4. Company B is ready to hire me in the same/similar role and are ready to give AC21 employment letter with same details as in my labor.
5. I have approved copy of my labor that was transferred and all other copies related to my case like I140, I485 application and Advance parole etc,....
Please give me some guidance on if I should be accepting the offer from Company B, I am concerned because my labor was transferred from another employee. I have worked for company A for nearly 4 years now and my GC is in process for almost 4 years, labor switch was done like 2 years ago.
Based on this explanation do you see any risk and am I missing anything here, in terms of getting specific documentation from company A application..
please help
Please update your profile with details so that it can be helpful to everyone tracking the success
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/profile.php?do=editprofile
on IV tracker
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
IV members are requested to update their profile with valid dates so that we can make IV tracker helpful for everyone.
I have personally decided to make this request to everyone who does not have their details completed and only then respond to the member. If a member has bogus data in their profile for tracking purposes I would not be replying to that post. This might help encourage members wanting replies from IV core team for their questions.
I am working for company A and I have offer from Company B, I thinking of my options, Here is my situation
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
2. I have approved EAD
3. mine is labor transfer case and I used an existing labor that matched my job profile
4. Company B is ready to hire me in the same/similar role and are ready to give AC21 employment letter with same details as in my labor.
5. I have approved copy of my labor that was transferred and all other copies related to my case like I140, I485 application and Advance parole etc,....
Please give me some guidance on if I should be accepting the offer from Company B, I am concerned because my labor was transferred from another employee. I have worked for company A for nearly 4 years now and my GC is in process for almost 4 years, labor switch was done like 2 years ago.
Based on this explanation do you see any risk and am I missing anything here, in terms of getting specific documentation from company A application..
please help
Please update your profile with details so that it can be helpful to everyone tracking the success
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/profile.php?do=editprofile
on IV tracker
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
IV members are requested to update their profile with valid dates so that we can make IV tracker helpful for everyone.
I have personally decided to make this request to everyone who does not have their details completed and only then respond to the member. If a member has bogus data in their profile for tracking purposes I would not be replying to that post. This might help encourage members wanting replies from IV core team for their questions.
tattoo What is Breast reduction
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
pictures Breast feeding basics
hatighora
07-30 02:54 PM
I think there is a chance if the baby becomes a celebrity baby. If our babies become a hollywood star,sports star or a baby genius, there should be some possibility of getting greencard thru that baby, but with an ordinary baby chances are slim with the current immigration rules.
dresses Breast Lift Denver – Before
GCNirvana007
04-08 04:46 PM
Ok, i appreciate all the answers/recommendations. Now since You guys are the IV, can i get answer to my original questions
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
makeup How To Do A Breast
eastindia
08-20 12:06 PM
Ron says, The USCIS teleconference concerning implementation of PL 111-230 provided the following information:
* The effective date of the new law was August 14, 2010 and all petition submissions postmarked on or after that date are subject to the new tax.
* The new tax only applies to companies that have:
o 50 or more full and part time employees in the US; and
o At least 50% of those employees hold H1B or L status.
* If an employee has an EAD, but is working using an H1B, that employee counts toward the total. If the employee works using his or her EAD, however, the employee does not count.
* The new tax only applies to new H filings (including change of employer filings)
* The new tax DOES NOT apply to extensions or amendments
* The total new tax is $2,000, not the higher amount originally feared
* The CIS confirmed that the additional fee must be paid by the petitioner and not the employee
* Both full and part time employees count toward the 50 employee threshold
* Any L2 employees, working using an EAD, also count toward the total
* The CIS is in the process of developing a new I-129 form to capture information concerning the new fee
* The CSC and VSC are attempting to screen existing cases, with filing postmarks on or after August 14th. For those that are found likely to be subject to the new tax, they will issue RFEs
* DO NOT send checks to the CIS for the additional fee until you receive an RFE.
* New filings by exempt companies should include a signed attestation that they are not subject to the new tax.
* Best practice, use a separate check for the new fee.
* The effective date of the new law was August 14, 2010 and all petition submissions postmarked on or after that date are subject to the new tax.
* The new tax only applies to companies that have:
o 50 or more full and part time employees in the US; and
o At least 50% of those employees hold H1B or L status.
* If an employee has an EAD, but is working using an H1B, that employee counts toward the total. If the employee works using his or her EAD, however, the employee does not count.
* The new tax only applies to new H filings (including change of employer filings)
* The new tax DOES NOT apply to extensions or amendments
* The total new tax is $2,000, not the higher amount originally feared
* The CIS confirmed that the additional fee must be paid by the petitioner and not the employee
* Both full and part time employees count toward the 50 employee threshold
* Any L2 employees, working using an EAD, also count toward the total
* The CIS is in the process of developing a new I-129 form to capture information concerning the new fee
* The CSC and VSC are attempting to screen existing cases, with filing postmarks on or after August 14th. For those that are found likely to be subject to the new tax, they will issue RFEs
* DO NOT send checks to the CIS for the additional fee until you receive an RFE.
* New filings by exempt companies should include a signed attestation that they are not subject to the new tax.
* Best practice, use a separate check for the new fee.
girlfriend Types of Breast Cancer
lost_in_migration
05-14 07:36 PM
Thanks a lot coreIV
hairstyles reast cancer
ibbu_arif
11-17 03:03 PM
Thanks for your replies.
Yes, I understood AP approvals cannot be posted to Outside US. You have to be physically present in US while it gets approved.
But one thing is NOT clear from the "rsdang's" statement "Caution - Please talk to lawyer as there is some stuff around abandoning your petition is you go out of country before approval... "..
"Are you referring to AP extension petition or the Original GC petition?"
Any other opinions from other Gurus of the forum?
I checked with my attorney and he confirmed that there shouldn't be any issue with the AOS petition. But he didn't confirm what will happen to my AP extension petition. I am still waiting for his response.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/HandLFinalRule110107.pdf
Looking at this PDF doc, there doesn't seem to be requirement that you need to have the AP to travel as long as you have valid H1B stamping.
Yes, I understood AP approvals cannot be posted to Outside US. You have to be physically present in US while it gets approved.
But one thing is NOT clear from the "rsdang's" statement "Caution - Please talk to lawyer as there is some stuff around abandoning your petition is you go out of country before approval... "..
"Are you referring to AP extension petition or the Original GC petition?"
Any other opinions from other Gurus of the forum?
I checked with my attorney and he confirmed that there shouldn't be any issue with the AOS petition. But he didn't confirm what will happen to my AP extension petition. I am still waiting for his response.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/HandLFinalRule110107.pdf
Looking at this PDF doc, there doesn't seem to be requirement that you need to have the AP to travel as long as you have valid H1B stamping.
guygeek007
07-25 01:00 PM
^^^^^^^^^
pariraj
08-26 02:21 PM
She can work for any company she wants... her EAD is not limited to any job/profession... So she can work for Company B or C or D
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
Are you sure about this? My wife is on H1-B right now having EAD and AP both and she wants to quit her job. So I am planning to switch her from H1-B to H4. Will that abandon her I-485 filed as a dependent?
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
Are you sure about this? My wife is on H1-B right now having EAD and AP both and she wants to quit her job. So I am planning to switch her from H1-B to H4. Will that abandon her I-485 filed as a dependent?
No comments:
Post a Comment