bigboy007
12-10 02:18 PM
Also some one has pointed out that SOC codes should be same or similar:
Now as per DOL website:
15-1000 Computer Specialists
** 15-1010 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
**15-1011 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
15-1020 Computer Programmers
15-1021 Computer Programmers
15-1030 Computer Software Engineers
15-1031 Computer Software Engineers, Applications
15-1032 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software
15-1040 Computer Support Specialists
15-1041 Computer Support Specialists
15-1050 Computer Systems Analysts
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
** 15-1060 Database Administrators
**15-1061 Database Administrators
** 15-1070 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
**15-1071 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
** 15-1080 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
**15-1081 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
15-1090 Miscellaneous Computer Specialists
15-1099 Computer Specialists, All Other
==============================================
I know "**" ones are different and doesnt apply to what i am looking does this mean people go in and around these rest of SOC as and when my new job is in "Computer Specialists" range? i am confused.
What role should i do to intimate USCIS and how do they enquire about htis is it when i do H1b Transfer ?
Now as per DOL website:
15-1000 Computer Specialists
** 15-1010 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
**15-1011 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
15-1020 Computer Programmers
15-1021 Computer Programmers
15-1030 Computer Software Engineers
15-1031 Computer Software Engineers, Applications
15-1032 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software
15-1040 Computer Support Specialists
15-1041 Computer Support Specialists
15-1050 Computer Systems Analysts
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
** 15-1060 Database Administrators
**15-1061 Database Administrators
** 15-1070 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
**15-1071 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
** 15-1080 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
**15-1081 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
15-1090 Miscellaneous Computer Specialists
15-1099 Computer Specialists, All Other
==============================================
I know "**" ones are different and doesnt apply to what i am looking does this mean people go in and around these rest of SOC as and when my new job is in "Computer Specialists" range? i am confused.
What role should i do to intimate USCIS and how do they enquire about htis is it when i do H1b Transfer ?
wallpaper BIRTHDAY WISHES..to
aamchimumbai
09-12 12:06 AM
Folks,
I applied for my 485 last week and the apps. were received at the NSC on Sep 5. Typically, how long does it take for the USCIS to send a receipt notice? Rather when can I expect to see that my application was accepted for processing....
It'll be a week tomorrow. Can anyone shed some light from their past experience.
Thanks all.
I applied for my 485 last week and the apps. were received at the NSC on Sep 5. Typically, how long does it take for the USCIS to send a receipt notice? Rather when can I expect to see that my application was accepted for processing....
It'll be a week tomorrow. Can anyone shed some light from their past experience.
Thanks all.
superdude
07-17 01:46 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
IV Core do know the news. They are waiting for the govt officials to declare the news
IV Core do know the news. They are waiting for the govt officials to declare the news
2011 Belated Birthday Wishes
scamp
04-21 01:13 PM
I know how you feel but Im sure your time will come, our application is in Texas Service Center also and we are current since March and I was expecting that it will be approved in November but thank God my husband received an approval email just today. Forget about their processing dates it was never followed in our case, our I-140 was supposed to be approved december last yr but we got approval notice last October, our receipt notice for I-145 is June 20, 2007 but we got approved today.
Here's other details:
Eb3 Philippines
PD July 2004
1-140/I-485 RD June 20'07
I-140 approved- Oct 25'07
I-485 aprroved- Apr 21'08
Here's other details:
Eb3 Philippines
PD July 2004
1-140/I-485 RD June 20'07
I-140 approved- Oct 25'07
I-485 aprroved- Apr 21'08
more...
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?
romeshtrisal
10-19 11:06 AM
EB-2, NSC, PD 10/30/07. Only LUD on 11/22/06, since then nothing
more...
trramesh
11-09 02:03 PM
All,
Please post this information on other sites to get more people to participate in this survey. The survey ends on Dec 15.
Pappu,
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
Please post this information on other sites to get more people to participate in this survey. The survey ends on Dec 15.
Pappu,
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
2010 Otteramp;#39;s Birthday Wishes
looneytunezez
04-08 04:17 PM
Employment-based: At this time the amount of demand being received in the Employment First preference is extremely low compared with that of recent years. Absent an immediate and dramatic increase in demand, this category will remain “Current” for all countries. It also appears unlikely that a Second preference cut-off date will be imposed for any countries other than China and India, where demand is extremely high. Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
more...
Siddharta
09-26 04:41 PM
If employer revokes I-140 (even after 180 days) and I-485 get denied, you lose your old PD. So it's not set in stone.
Are you 100% sure about this.
Are you 100% sure about this.
hair Birthday Wishes for Facebook,
sledge_hammer
02-08 01:25 PM
All I'm doing is trying to keep this thread alive by posting something :p
more...
addsf345
10-29 02:18 PM
can anyone answer this
I know a person who had to leave his employer only after 60 days of filling his 485(not even 180 days for ac21) and still got GC.
There are thousands who already working for new employer using AC21 after 180 days.
and you are scared to death even after getting GC. Let me ask you this...are you a man or chicken?
I know a person who had to leave his employer only after 60 days of filling his 485(not even 180 days for ac21) and still got GC.
There are thousands who already working for new employer using AC21 after 180 days.
and you are scared to death even after getting GC. Let me ask you this...are you a man or chicken?
hot Send Beautiful Birthday Wishes
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...
house Birthday birthday wishes
piyu7444
05-08 02:52 PM
Thank you senk1s & gccovet. Have added some Green's to both of you !
tattoo Birthday wishes greeting
yabadaba
11-06 02:13 PM
dude...ur i-140 is also not approved..sit tight
more...
pictures Birthday Wishes
GC_1000Watt
12-04 06:12 PM
1> just carried the usual documents required, job letter, tax returns, I-129, LCA, Paystubs etc. I also carried whatever documentation I could find for my previous employers like experience letter, last few paystubs etc. Also original of degrees/transcripts.
2> I stayed at Hotel Real Del Rio which is less than a minute walk from the consulate. It's right behind the consulate infact. Very nice hotel; courteous staff. Recommended you do booking through expedia ($70), although expedia will not charge your credit card but you can carry the printout which will get you that rate. If you book directly with the hotel, the rate's much higher (close to $100)
3> YEs, I got the tourist visa for mexico. Although nobody checked it anywhere, but I believe entering any country without valid visa/paperwork is illegal. Getting a mexican visa was very easy. You just go to the consulate/embassy, tell them you want to go to the US consulate in Tijuana for H-1b stamping. They issue you within the hour stamped. Cost about $36. Just get your H-1b petition with you for proof, and the appointment confirmation.
4> The validity of H-1b depends on the validity of the petition I-797. Whatever period you have that for, will be stamped.
5> He just asked me for job letter, asked me if I've applied for GC (I have), asked me that don't I have to work with them for a certain time (to which I replied I did and after I was eligible I changed employers using AC-21). He just read the job duties in my H-1B petition (most likely to check for any TAL related stuff). He remarked that inspite of my experience, my close-to-six-figure salary is a bit above slavery (to which I replied that I do get other benefits such as 401k, paid time-off, health/medical insurance etc.). He just asked some other questions such as what was my major in masters, how long I've been in US, had I worked in India, if so how long. I replied all of them. It appears he put that in the comments screen on his PC. And then he said he's approving it.
It was basically a bar-like casual conversation I had with him. Within a few seconds of my start of the interview with IO, I knew he'll approve my visa. so it was pretty cool all along the way.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I will get back to you if I will have any further questions.
2> I stayed at Hotel Real Del Rio which is less than a minute walk from the consulate. It's right behind the consulate infact. Very nice hotel; courteous staff. Recommended you do booking through expedia ($70), although expedia will not charge your credit card but you can carry the printout which will get you that rate. If you book directly with the hotel, the rate's much higher (close to $100)
3> YEs, I got the tourist visa for mexico. Although nobody checked it anywhere, but I believe entering any country without valid visa/paperwork is illegal. Getting a mexican visa was very easy. You just go to the consulate/embassy, tell them you want to go to the US consulate in Tijuana for H-1b stamping. They issue you within the hour stamped. Cost about $36. Just get your H-1b petition with you for proof, and the appointment confirmation.
4> The validity of H-1b depends on the validity of the petition I-797. Whatever period you have that for, will be stamped.
5> He just asked me for job letter, asked me if I've applied for GC (I have), asked me that don't I have to work with them for a certain time (to which I replied I did and after I was eligible I changed employers using AC-21). He just read the job duties in my H-1B petition (most likely to check for any TAL related stuff). He remarked that inspite of my experience, my close-to-six-figure salary is a bit above slavery (to which I replied that I do get other benefits such as 401k, paid time-off, health/medical insurance etc.). He just asked some other questions such as what was my major in masters, how long I've been in US, had I worked in India, if so how long. I replied all of them. It appears he put that in the comments screen on his PC. And then he said he's approving it.
It was basically a bar-like casual conversation I had with him. Within a few seconds of my start of the interview with IO, I knew he'll approve my visa. so it was pretty cool all along the way.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I will get back to you if I will have any further questions.
dresses belated irthday wishes.
Marphad
01-09 12:38 PM
Anotehr question in thsi regard, say ur I-94 expired and you applied for and got h1 renewal, and the new I-797 has the new I-94 in it, so we cut it from there and staple it to our passports ???
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
No the current one!
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
No the current one!
more...
makeup happy irthday wishes gif.
ck_b2001
07-17 07:05 PM
You need to be in US untill you recieve "Reciept of Notice". For those who filed Jul 2nd may be a special case as untill today it was thought to be rejected. In this situation i dont know how that rule will apply. On your return you have to show the 485 reciept notice along with your valid H1/H4 Visa (if Travel document is pending) to enter to US. It may mess up the database at POE if you do not mention pending 485.
I would advise you seek legal advice if you have filed on Jul 2nd and you or your spouse has or is travelled (ing) abroad.
My wife was planning on travelling next week and she has to cancell her trip to be safe.
I would advise you seek legal advice if you have filed on Jul 2nd and you or your spouse has or is travelled (ing) abroad.
My wife was planning on travelling next week and she has to cancell her trip to be safe.
girlfriend irthday wishes
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)
hairstyles irthday wishes msg
NKR
04-15 08:50 PM
Congratulations, I am happy for you.
virat
07-25 11:56 AM
Here is the calculation I came up with USCIS processing of our I-485 applications.
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
The assumptions here are all the 50 guys are working only on EB cases no family and other cases, they are not doing any other data entry job like putting 450/ead/ap applications into system, they are not approving any of ead/ap cases. And they are working 8 hours daily. Looking at the general work environment around i bet the productive hrs in 8 hr work day is around 5/6 hrs. So keeping in mind these factors i feel the 80000 is okay number. They certainly need more staff. My 2 cents.
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
The assumptions here are all the 50 guys are working only on EB cases no family and other cases, they are not doing any other data entry job like putting 450/ead/ap applications into system, they are not approving any of ead/ap cases. And they are working 8 hours daily. Looking at the general work environment around i bet the productive hrs in 8 hr work day is around 5/6 hrs. So keeping in mind these factors i feel the 80000 is okay number. They certainly need more staff. My 2 cents.
mlk2009
08-06 07:32 PM
hi,
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
No comments:
Post a Comment