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)
wallpaper Double click on the wallpaper
jvs_annapurna
05-07 11:23 PM
sorry guys i was moving to new place. it was with i-94
nashdel
08-07 11:09 PM
Mine approved August 2nd, Wife`s pending. May be this is one of the administrative fixes from USCIS! As primary on EAD I would have to Work in same job classification, can not stay here for long without work or open a new business. But spouse on EAD can do either one of those per my knowledge. They can allot visa number to another primary. I do not think this is the reasoning from USCIS and there has to be some other reason though such as security check. I wonder if it is smart for them to allot visa numbers to primary and secondary in 2:1 ratio. Will ease problems for lot of people.
2011 Cool DELL Wallpaper .
GCAmigo
01-02 03:48 PM
So I was lucky as I am blissfully ignorant of this rule up until now.. may be my next visit would be with an AP.. just dreaming.. I went to the Chennai Consulate though...
more...
keerthi
05-10 03:01 PM
We asked the AAO for an update since the case status has not been changed for the past 3 months and this is what we got from them...
"Appeals of an I-129 petition take about 6 to 8 months to process. It starts from the date your file was received into the Administrative Appeals Office. Please wait patiently for your case to be reviewed, thank you."
My case was transferred to the AAO by February 9, 2009 (as per the USCIS website). So, should I wait until October 8, 2009 for a decision or should I withdraw the case and re-file again?
What are my chances of getting it approved before October 2009?
Also, I only hold a 3 years Bachelor's degree and possess 6 years of work experience of which 5 years goes to the petitioning company. Is there a chance that I would be rejected based on the grounds of my degree?
"Appeals of an I-129 petition take about 6 to 8 months to process. It starts from the date your file was received into the Administrative Appeals Office. Please wait patiently for your case to be reviewed, thank you."
My case was transferred to the AAO by February 9, 2009 (as per the USCIS website). So, should I wait until October 8, 2009 for a decision or should I withdraw the case and re-file again?
What are my chances of getting it approved before October 2009?
Also, I only hold a 3 years Bachelor's degree and possess 6 years of work experience of which 5 years goes to the petitioning company. Is there a chance that I would be rejected based on the grounds of my degree?
Steve Mitchell
October 27th, 2003, 10:14 AM
I like the second shot quite a bit. I think that would look fantastic in a large nice frame.
more...
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 04:39 PM
Guys,
Lets not repeat this type of threads. We recently had to ban ScratchingHead for similar type of threads. This diverts attention and energy. There are other money related forums and communities available.
Lets not repeat this type of threads. We recently had to ban ScratchingHead for similar type of threads. This diverts attention and energy. There are other money related forums and communities available.
2010 Dell Natural wallpaper Latest
ewana
02-02 11:57 PM
Hi all,
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
more...
Scythe
11-27 05:09 PM
I guess my button was too simple after all.
hair Wallpaper Dell XP Pro
gsc999
01-24 11:06 PM
Hello Nor. Cal,
If we don't get going, I am afraid that we will not be able to achieve our objective, your objective.
A few motivated people can only go so far. It is unfair to think that your time is more precious than any other volunteer's time. You just might be surprised to learn from us how busy we ourselves are.
Please stand up for your rights. Don't take this campaign for granted.
If we don't get going, I am afraid that we will not be able to achieve our objective, your objective.
A few motivated people can only go so far. It is unfair to think that your time is more precious than any other volunteer's time. You just might be surprised to learn from us how busy we ourselves are.
Please stand up for your rights. Don't take this campaign for granted.
more...
qualified_trash
12-03 06:53 AM
If the old 140 is revoked, according to the law, you are not allowed to get an extension based on it
this is only true if the revocation is due to fraud. if not, the PD is yours to keep.
this is only true if the revocation is due to fraud. if not, the PD is yours to keep.
hot wallpapers dell. wallpapers
Navigator
05-19 02:23 PM
Hello fellas...i had quit WIPRO @ USA giving 2 weeks notice on 2009.WIPRO Mangers tried to withdraw my resignation in all means.They even told that they ll sue me for breaking the contract that i have signed.
After this WIPRO bangalore office sent me 5 letters asking me to pay 6 lac rs indian money to them.I refused and didnt respond to it .
As general rule who ever resign the company should provide insurance for next 30 days as a coverage .I guess they didnt do that for me .
Also they didnt send me the relieving letter and others indian PF etc.
They even paid less that that was specified in the LCA.
I would like to know if you had complaint DOL on this ?
Regards
After this WIPRO bangalore office sent me 5 letters asking me to pay 6 lac rs indian money to them.I refused and didnt respond to it .
As general rule who ever resign the company should provide insurance for next 30 days as a coverage .I guess they didnt do that for me .
Also they didnt send me the relieving letter and others indian PF etc.
They even paid less that that was specified in the LCA.
I would like to know if you had complaint DOL on this ?
Regards
more...
house dell wallpapers.
eb3retro
06-17 04:33 PM
u r right, green for you...
Let's say there is a problem. What can you do to fix it? You want to start GC fresh?
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
Let's say there is a problem. What can you do to fix it? You want to start GC fresh?
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
tattoo DEll XPS wallpapers megan
lazycis
05-07 01:29 PM
Forget to mention that you can port to self-employment :)
more...
pictures Dell WallPaper.
zCool
04-13 06:36 PM
Hello All,
I came across this site while researching for *urgent* solutions or options that my friend needs to pursue or has.
These are my friend's details --
EB3 -- India.
I140 approved in July 2007.
485 filed in July 2007.
MS in Engg from USA.
MBA in Finance from top ten school in USA.
Has applied for couple of patents in tech field.
Author of few papers in tech field.
My friend worked for his green card petitioning employer for 7 years in a technical position on H1 visa. He had to leave this job under some unfavorable circumstances around a month back. He has now taken a job as Marketing Manager for a big firm and is using his EAD. Two weeks back he has received an RFE on his 485 application. (Very curious and bad timing indeed too). This RFE needs a Employment Verification Letter. The current position that my friend works as does not match the position description on his labor petition. The RFE reply needs to be sent in within next 2 weeks.
What are his options to reply to the RFE? One of the lawyers that was consulted said that since Green Card is for a future position, he needs to get a legit letter from a future employer that the employer is willing to hire my friend after he gets his green card.
Also suggested were EB2-NIW and self-employment options.
What would you suggest -- best course of action? Would you know anybody who has gone through a similar situation. Any fallback options that my friend needs to evaluate?
I really appreciate all your replies. Pl treat this as very urgent.
Thanks.
Lawyer is correct. letter needs to be from future employer.
EB2 NIW generally can not be applied by Marketing Manager, where is the National interest when you hawk the wares or services? Unless he's marketing Boeing planes and saving jobs thro' his branding brilliance, it's crapshoot..
I came across this site while researching for *urgent* solutions or options that my friend needs to pursue or has.
These are my friend's details --
EB3 -- India.
I140 approved in July 2007.
485 filed in July 2007.
MS in Engg from USA.
MBA in Finance from top ten school in USA.
Has applied for couple of patents in tech field.
Author of few papers in tech field.
My friend worked for his green card petitioning employer for 7 years in a technical position on H1 visa. He had to leave this job under some unfavorable circumstances around a month back. He has now taken a job as Marketing Manager for a big firm and is using his EAD. Two weeks back he has received an RFE on his 485 application. (Very curious and bad timing indeed too). This RFE needs a Employment Verification Letter. The current position that my friend works as does not match the position description on his labor petition. The RFE reply needs to be sent in within next 2 weeks.
What are his options to reply to the RFE? One of the lawyers that was consulted said that since Green Card is for a future position, he needs to get a legit letter from a future employer that the employer is willing to hire my friend after he gets his green card.
Also suggested were EB2-NIW and self-employment options.
What would you suggest -- best course of action? Would you know anybody who has gone through a similar situation. Any fallback options that my friend needs to evaluate?
I really appreciate all your replies. Pl treat this as very urgent.
Thanks.
Lawyer is correct. letter needs to be from future employer.
EB2 NIW generally can not be applied by Marketing Manager, where is the National interest when you hawk the wares or services? Unless he's marketing Boeing planes and saving jobs thro' his branding brilliance, it's crapshoot..
dresses It is a Dell Studio One 19
h1bemployee
02-25 06:07 PM
I came to US on h1b visa in Feb 2007.... after joining my first job my employer applied for a change in LCA because of the new salary(which is less than the original)... USCIS replied to that amendment after 16 months with an RFE... My comapany responded to that RFE and after that they got a reply from the USCIS that the H1b amendment is denied....
My employer told me that I have to leave USA with in the next 2 weeks. But my h1b is valid up to sep 2009.
what are the options for me?
can I apply for a H1b transfer?
please help
My employer told me that I have to leave USA with in the next 2 weeks. But my h1b is valid up to sep 2009.
what are the options for me?
can I apply for a H1b transfer?
please help
more...
makeup Macro DELL Logo Wallpaper
eastindia
04-08 08:39 AM
Looking at this issue, isnt' it USCIS who is at fault here ?
How can they allow the employer to "reuse" the original labor when employee1 has already used it for his I-140 approval ?
This is definitely a USCIS mess. Employees/beneficiaries shouldn't be paying the price for USCIS's fault.
This is really wonderful.
USCIS should be screwing people who used Substitute labor. They should even revoke or issue RFEs to all peoples who got Greencard using Substitute labor. I am sure the queue is get very very short if this happens. let us not allow these people who jumped in this queue.
I am writing to USCIS about this. Let us all write to USCIS, Ombudsman and also on USCIS blog about this.
How can they allow the employer to "reuse" the original labor when employee1 has already used it for his I-140 approval ?
This is definitely a USCIS mess. Employees/beneficiaries shouldn't be paying the price for USCIS's fault.
This is really wonderful.
USCIS should be screwing people who used Substitute labor. They should even revoke or issue RFEs to all peoples who got Greencard using Substitute labor. I am sure the queue is get very very short if this happens. let us not allow these people who jumped in this queue.
I am writing to USCIS about this. Let us all write to USCIS, Ombudsman and also on USCIS blog about this.
girlfriend Dell Wallpaper by ~alikarimi
roseball
02-20 09:04 AM
I am starting my 10th year on H1 Visa, and thus my company has renewed a few times already. On one of those instances, through ignorance I suppose, my H1 was renewed but my dependents were not. There was an assumption, which I now understand to be wrong, that my renewal would cover my dependents as well. Since after that we have renewed for all of us successfully.
One of the dependents, the wife, traveled out of the country and re entered with a H4 Stamp, which I understand cures her status. My son, however has never done this. We all have I-485's pending and I am worried about what that means for him. I am thinking of travelling out of the country, like Canada, to get our visas stamped and re - enter on the H status.
Question is: Is there any risk in that? If we go to, say Toronto to get the visa renewal, is there any chance that they would deny him? We have the 797 approvals for all of us. The last thing I want is to get stuck outside the country. I have reason to believe we have been pre adjudicated, if this means anything, and it is possible that if I do nothing it would all work out. However, I do not want to take chances with my kid's future.
Any one have any insight? Would going to Canada and returning on H4 cure his status? And are there any risks to this strategy? Thanks for the insight.
Was your son's H4 status valid when you filed his I-485? If so, even though his H4 is not valid now, he will automatically be in legal status based on his pending I-485. So no need to go for stamping. However, if his H4 was not valid when you filed his I-485, then there is a risk of his I-485 getting denied. In which case, getting a H4 visa stamp and re-entering would clear his out-of-status issue. One more thing, when you applied for dependent H4s after realizing the mistake, were the approvals with attached I-94? If not, your son won't be in H4 status until he goes out of the country and re-enters after getting a H4 VISA stamp.
One of the dependents, the wife, traveled out of the country and re entered with a H4 Stamp, which I understand cures her status. My son, however has never done this. We all have I-485's pending and I am worried about what that means for him. I am thinking of travelling out of the country, like Canada, to get our visas stamped and re - enter on the H status.
Question is: Is there any risk in that? If we go to, say Toronto to get the visa renewal, is there any chance that they would deny him? We have the 797 approvals for all of us. The last thing I want is to get stuck outside the country. I have reason to believe we have been pre adjudicated, if this means anything, and it is possible that if I do nothing it would all work out. However, I do not want to take chances with my kid's future.
Any one have any insight? Would going to Canada and returning on H4 cure his status? And are there any risks to this strategy? Thanks for the insight.
Was your son's H4 status valid when you filed his I-485? If so, even though his H4 is not valid now, he will automatically be in legal status based on his pending I-485. So no need to go for stamping. However, if his H4 was not valid when you filed his I-485, then there is a risk of his I-485 getting denied. In which case, getting a H4 visa stamp and re-entering would clear his out-of-status issue. One more thing, when you applied for dependent H4s after realizing the mistake, were the approvals with attached I-94? If not, your son won't be in H4 status until he goes out of the country and re-enters after getting a H4 VISA stamp.
hairstyles Top Dell Streak Wallpapers
chanduv23
04-08 04:06 PM
I have asked this question for 3rd straight day and yet no answer. Is it some kinda secret deal?. Thought its a public forum.
Come on my friend, Admins are like you and me. They are not having any magic wands. You may want to post your concerns in the public forum or the best thing is to contact your State chapter representative who will conduit you to the Admins.
These are tough times, so hang in there. IV is committed for our cause.
Come on my friend, Admins are like you and me. They are not having any magic wands. You may want to post your concerns in the public forum or the best thing is to contact your State chapter representative who will conduit you to the Admins.
These are tough times, so hang in there. IV is committed for our cause.
eb3India
04-13 09:43 AM
are u kidd'n me,
Indians who are here with GCs most of them run Bodyshop companies, they get up everyday morning and offer two cocounts and couple of agarabthi to Lou Dobbs, Mits Ramni, USCIS and co for delaying our GCs so that they can sell more labours, keep h1bs for more time
get real dude, no one is bothered about us,
Indians who are here with GCs most of them run Bodyshop companies, they get up everyday morning and offer two cocounts and couple of agarabthi to Lou Dobbs, Mits Ramni, USCIS and co for delaying our GCs so that they can sell more labours, keep h1bs for more time
get real dude, no one is bothered about us,
dealsnet
11-08 02:06 PM
Family based, majority (90%) is done by consular processing. AOS mostly for EB based. Petition for relatives is from the mother country, who is not present in USA for AOS. Yes - I agree with andy garcia
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
No comments:
Post a Comment