tinoue
09-27 09:52 AM
I have approved I140 notice ... i dont see A# can you pls help me find that number in approval notice (797)
It is in "Beneficiary" section, right above my name. But I heard some people do not have numbers on thier approved I-140. I do not know why, though.
It is in "Beneficiary" section, right above my name. But I heard some people do not have numbers on thier approved I-140. I do not know why, though.
pappu
05-20 08:31 PM
Good post
admin
06-01 04:19 PM
Question for Foks asking for a separate bill : I understand from Admins answer above , this may not be possible now.
My question is , separting this from CIR will QUICKEN the proceedings with respect to our issues?
Question for Admin : Was this poll started by IV?
BTW I have voted in favor of a separate bill assuming it will quicken things. Thanks.
This poll was started by one our forum members and not by the organizing committee.
Repeating my answer, no Senator is even willing to talk to us regarding an alternate bill till the fate of CIR is sealed.
Look at the necessary steps to pass a bill. We need to convince a senator, have the bill analyzed and discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committe, discussed and amended in the Senate Floor, passed in the Senate, convince a bunch of House Reps, get it introduced in the House, discussed in the House Judiciary Committee, discussed in the House, passed in the house. Only after all these steps will it be at the current stage as CIR.
So which Senator do you think will be willing to do all of this and then find that CIR with most of the provisions has already been passed.
My question is , separting this from CIR will QUICKEN the proceedings with respect to our issues?
Question for Admin : Was this poll started by IV?
BTW I have voted in favor of a separate bill assuming it will quicken things. Thanks.
This poll was started by one our forum members and not by the organizing committee.
Repeating my answer, no Senator is even willing to talk to us regarding an alternate bill till the fate of CIR is sealed.
Look at the necessary steps to pass a bill. We need to convince a senator, have the bill analyzed and discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committe, discussed and amended in the Senate Floor, passed in the Senate, convince a bunch of House Reps, get it introduced in the House, discussed in the House Judiciary Committee, discussed in the House, passed in the house. Only after all these steps will it be at the current stage as CIR.
So which Senator do you think will be willing to do all of this and then find that CIR with most of the provisions has already been passed.
va_labor2002
05-17 01:15 PM
I listened to President's speech last Monday on immigration.But,he did not mention anything about legal immigration issues. I think ,we should send a memorandum or mass letter from each members of IV to the President.
We should communicate our problems. If everybody sends letter to the IV Team and they can submit all the letters to the President's Office. What do you think ? Any comments ? Is there any better way of communicating to the President ?
We should communicate our problems. If everybody sends letter to the IV Team and they can submit all the letters to the President's Office. What do you think ? Any comments ? Is there any better way of communicating to the President ?
more...
SU1979
10-09 01:02 PM
Please provide additional details regarding U'r labor like EB1/2/3
GC approval process is a long process, U just started U'rs. I don't understand whatz the panic..
Pleaseprovide appropriate titles when U create a thread...
Thanks for your response. I shall put a good heading from next time. As this was my first post, I would like to take the opportunity to ask for apology.
My GC is in EB-2 category. My questions are very much clear. I do not have much idea about GC processing like you for which I have so much panic.
It would be great if you could please answer my above mentioned questions explicitely.
Thanks
GC approval process is a long process, U just started U'rs. I don't understand whatz the panic..
Pleaseprovide appropriate titles when U create a thread...
Thanks for your response. I shall put a good heading from next time. As this was my first post, I would like to take the opportunity to ask for apology.
My GC is in EB-2 category. My questions are very much clear. I do not have much idea about GC processing like you for which I have so much panic.
It would be great if you could please answer my above mentioned questions explicitely.
Thanks
dazed378
03-29 09:51 PM
snathan and number30, thanks a lot for your valuable input :).
more...
PDDec05
06-29 11:44 PM
Thank you for your input, do you know where I should call, if there is a number and so on? There is absolutely no information on any place on fixing 485 form.
I just called the 1-800 number on their website, but your lawyer may know someone in person at the USCIS.
I just called the 1-800 number on their website, but your lawyer may know someone in person at the USCIS.
brb2
11-08 06:31 PM
remember the bulk of the pending AOS are from retrogressed countries. So even those from ROW who have not yet filed (and may do so next few years) need to be added to the "pending AOS" in order to obtain the 'real' que size of pending AOS applications.
more...
simple1
10-06 03:57 PM
smuggymba, every one knows you are an anti immigrant. dont waste time here with fake posts.
Why should I make the fact gaps public and train anti immigrants like you ?
simple1 - whenever I see ur reply, it's regarding a toll alert. Same with ronhira guy. All you 2 two do is issue toll alert whenever someone asks a question.
H1-B audits are a reality and he is asking about a visit that he got because clearly no one expects it. What's the problem? What fact gaps did ur james bond brain find?
Why should I make the fact gaps public and train anti immigrants like you ?
simple1 - whenever I see ur reply, it's regarding a toll alert. Same with ronhira guy. All you 2 two do is issue toll alert whenever someone asks a question.
H1-B audits are a reality and he is asking about a visit that he got because clearly no one expects it. What's the problem? What fact gaps did ur james bond brain find?
abhijitp
01-26 05:42 PM
^^
more...
snathan
04-19 12:15 PM
Hi Folks,
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
If she has a very good credit score, try for 0% balance transfer. But there is 3% transfer fee involved. You normally get 6-12 months time. But in this credit crunch no one is giving. But still there are some cards/banks are giving. It also based on how much she owes... I recently got offer for 1.99% for 8 months.
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
If she has a very good credit score, try for 0% balance transfer. But there is 3% transfer fee involved. You normally get 6-12 months time. But in this credit crunch no one is giving. But still there are some cards/banks are giving. It also based on how much she owes... I recently got offer for 1.99% for 8 months.
hebron
01-20 02:42 PM
can name few who became "big" literally (--fat)
LOL...Good one!
LOL...Good one!
more...
cdeneo
04-02 10:41 PM
I have a somewhat tangent but related question that I could not find a definite answer to while searching thru the various threads here -
What is the best way to change representation of one's case from the company lawyer to Self when you are changing jobs? Someone mentioned on one of the threads that one needs to file another G-28 form but I believe that is the case only if you are changing to a different attorney - please advise.
Also, does anyone have any experience with how long it takes for this change to take effect once communicated to USCIS?
Any insight into how to tackle this would be very helpful. Thanks!
What is the best way to change representation of one's case from the company lawyer to Self when you are changing jobs? Someone mentioned on one of the threads that one needs to file another G-28 form but I believe that is the case only if you are changing to a different attorney - please advise.
Also, does anyone have any experience with how long it takes for this change to take effect once communicated to USCIS?
Any insight into how to tackle this would be very helpful. Thanks!
hopefulgc
08-13 03:28 PM
actually its a great movie title "vdlrao kaun hai"
who is vld rao?
who is vld rao?
more...
tonyHK12
12-01 10:01 AM
Definitely a good idea.........the first thing that needs to happen is for us immigrants to contact our own employers (and if it is a big company - they will have some section that deals with govt affairs/lobbying) ask them to support our cause through action.......
I work for a small company, but my employer is a very decent man and may provide some funds..........(Christmas season and all!).
If he chooses to donate would it be the "contribute" link?
Great! thanks for your efforts. Yes it would be good if he creates an account and logs in before donating, that way it would be credited as his contribution.
The link is in my signature but you can also follow the link 'Donate' at the top in green or 'Contributions' on the home page.
Of course other large companies like the ones in Silicon Valley, MS, etc could also directly reach out to our admin/core besides this and also help in lobbying.
I work for a small company, but my employer is a very decent man and may provide some funds..........(Christmas season and all!).
If he chooses to donate would it be the "contribute" link?
Great! thanks for your efforts. Yes it would be good if he creates an account and logs in before donating, that way it would be credited as his contribution.
The link is in my signature but you can also follow the link 'Donate' at the top in green or 'Contributions' on the home page.
Of course other large companies like the ones in Silicon Valley, MS, etc could also directly reach out to our admin/core besides this and also help in lobbying.
kris04
07-06 07:44 PM
Why would you need an EVL from your new employer or inform the USCIS of your job change, in this case? AC21 does not require you to "file AC21" (whatever that means), contrary to what has been advised in this forum many times. Please Google "Yates memo;" see, e.g., http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/ac21-51205.pdf. Here are my attorney's comments in this regard:
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
more...
Green.Tech
08-06 11:00 AM
Didn't you know for sure that you were going to stay with employer before asking them to apply GC.
It may be illegal by Law by asking you to give the money back, but where would you put your action of wasting somebody's money?
Not sure the contracting terms between you and your employer, but surely he was not the one forcing you to join the company, its you joined.
If he was ready to help you to get GC, ready to invest atleast 9K on the process, why would you think his money is there just for you to play.
Of course, you have valid points by law, you may escape from the latch now, but make sure this is not an repeating event.
Calm down buddy, no need to get excited!
FYI. I have been with the employer for ever. It's just that they are now revisiting/revising their GC policy, and I am trying to make sure that the policy makes sense for both the employer and any future employees. And who knows I may have to agree to this policy in future if I decide to redo my GC application :)
It may be illegal by Law by asking you to give the money back, but where would you put your action of wasting somebody's money?
Not sure the contracting terms between you and your employer, but surely he was not the one forcing you to join the company, its you joined.
If he was ready to help you to get GC, ready to invest atleast 9K on the process, why would you think his money is there just for you to play.
Of course, you have valid points by law, you may escape from the latch now, but make sure this is not an repeating event.
Calm down buddy, no need to get excited!
FYI. I have been with the employer for ever. It's just that they are now revisiting/revising their GC policy, and I am trying to make sure that the policy makes sense for both the employer and any future employees. And who knows I may have to agree to this policy in future if I decide to redo my GC application :)
kshitijnt
04-23 08:23 AM
The statistics can be skewed in that people switch jobs after perm, people like me have filed 2nd perm application despite having an earlier 2005 application.
gjoe
10-05 12:04 PM
Because his RD is before yours. When a PD is current , GC is isssued based on RD.So if your PD is May 2002, but RD is July 2007. and another guys PD is May 2004 but his RD is June 2007...The other guy will get GC first.
In july uscis assigned visa numbers to variious cases with older RD regardless of PD.Hence, you will see approvals in the coming month, inspite of the fact that their PD is not current.
For no fault of mine why should I suffer? I didn't file in July2007 because I didn't want to do it earlier. It was USCIS fault for not being able to come up the correct cuoff dates and DOL's problem in approving Labor certs with two different systems.
I think bad managment affecting your life is a good reason for sueing for damage
In july uscis assigned visa numbers to variious cases with older RD regardless of PD.Hence, you will see approvals in the coming month, inspite of the fact that their PD is not current.
For no fault of mine why should I suffer? I didn't file in July2007 because I didn't want to do it earlier. It was USCIS fault for not being able to come up the correct cuoff dates and DOL's problem in approving Labor certs with two different systems.
I think bad managment affecting your life is a good reason for sueing for damage
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
bmoni
12-22 11:55 AM
Guys, Currently i am in my 7th year. I-140 pending planning to move to another company after my I-140 approval. My understanding if you have a approved I-140 you get to keep the priority date even if you didn't apply 485...
But when i talked to my attorney he said only i can keep the I-140 if i apply 485 and its 180 days pending ...guys could you please verify is this true...
If it not could you please point to necessary document so i can shed some lights to my attorney ..
Thanks,
Viva IV
But when i talked to my attorney he said only i can keep the I-140 if i apply 485 and its 180 days pending ...guys could you please verify is this true...
If it not could you please point to necessary document so i can shed some lights to my attorney ..
Thanks,
Viva IV
No comments:
Post a Comment