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)
wallpaper “Hubbies name” tattooed on
shsk
07-17 01:02 AM
Thank you very much, I will be sending the document tomorrow:)
srikondoji
01-25 04:05 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_wants_more_young_Indian_minds_in_United_State s/articleshow/1461553.cms
This is very promising and can help our IV team to press on for relief provisions for Skilled workers already here.
Good luck to us all.
This is very promising and can help our IV team to press on for relief provisions for Skilled workers already here.
Good luck to us all.
2011 This photo of a name tattoo in
rjgleason
May 23rd, 2005, 02:41 PM
I like them all Gary, but agree with Chris about the cloning out that bright white rock , or whatever it is, in the first one. Also, unless you've been there before, it's difficult to capture the enormity of those rocks. The footpath catches my eye in the second photo which gives some perspective on where you are positioned. It looks like you are a quite a bit above and working your way down to the path. The 3rd pic looks like a crop? of the upper-center of the 2nd pic? And lastly, can I apply for a job where you work so I can travel too!
QJ: I thought we were going to Exmor??
QJ: I thought we were going to Exmor??
more...
probe
05-27 02:59 PM
Applied (E-filed) on 4/19/2010 LUD on 4/26/2010 received receipt notice in a week.So far no finger print notice . I did received finger print twice in the past when I applied for EAD even though they took finger prints for I-485.
I heard that finger prints obtained at port of entry will be good for other immigration related applications.
I heard that finger prints obtained at port of entry will be good for other immigration related applications.
Sath thesmilingstar
02-24 05:09 PM
Yes.. u can apply for FAFSA.. U do qualify. U can either PM me or Call them directly. They are very helpful.
Good Luck..
RV..
"AP is Advance Parole" to enter US.
yes i did call them and they were asking me for a social security number which i donot have so how do i deal with this.
Good Luck..
RV..
"AP is Advance Parole" to enter US.
yes i did call them and they were asking me for a social security number which i donot have so how do i deal with this.
more...
girishvar
07-13 08:14 PM
Hello all, If you are from Texas please reply to this thread to get together and activate our state chapter. Any ideas are welcome. So please post to this thread and see how we can contribute/Volunteer to make IV stronger.
Thank you
I am in San Antonio, Texas
Thank you
I am in San Antonio, Texas
2010 Name Tattoo Ideas
gcdreamer05
08-05 05:11 PM
Guys n Girls,
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
more...
manderson
11-09 08:57 AM
unless you are a European on EB3.
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
hair tattoo names designs. old
marlon2006
06-14 11:30 AM
Yes. It seems that NY was a little behind NSC.
It is a very, very inconvenient situation to be in. We are getting older and this lack of professional freedom has potential to ruin our careers you know.
Since it is now on Oct/2001, it seems you should be getting closer to file I-485. Chances are you will be able to see this going to Nov/2001 as early as next month ! That could give you some relief.
I started my masters, but ironically, we are not eligible for in-state tuition therefore I put studies on hold, waiting for the GC. It is hard paying from our own pockets, it is very expensive and at the same time I already received job offers from employers in this area that would be willing to pay the graduate studies 100%, but again, I am waiting for the GC so that I could move on.
Wow, so you were able to file I-140 and I-485 at the same time? My PD is 11/01 but due to retrogression we are waiting for the visa numbers to become current to file :mad:
It is a very, very inconvenient situation to be in. We are getting older and this lack of professional freedom has potential to ruin our careers you know.
Since it is now on Oct/2001, it seems you should be getting closer to file I-485. Chances are you will be able to see this going to Nov/2001 as early as next month ! That could give you some relief.
I started my masters, but ironically, we are not eligible for in-state tuition therefore I put studies on hold, waiting for the GC. It is hard paying from our own pockets, it is very expensive and at the same time I already received job offers from employers in this area that would be willing to pay the graduate studies 100%, but again, I am waiting for the GC so that I could move on.
Wow, so you were able to file I-140 and I-485 at the same time? My PD is 11/01 but due to retrogression we are waiting for the visa numbers to become current to file :mad:
more...
jungalee43
06-29 06:44 PM
Sanjay,
Thanks for your reply.
Was your interview an "initial interview"? was the spouse with you?
I am taking all documents, but what specifially they look for? I am confused by what they mean "Originals and copies of all supporting documents submitted with the application"? Does this mean documents submitted with I-485 or labor certificate?
Can you post or PM your esperience?
Thanks for your reply.
Was your interview an "initial interview"? was the spouse with you?
I am taking all documents, but what specifially they look for? I am confused by what they mean "Originals and copies of all supporting documents submitted with the application"? Does this mean documents submitted with I-485 or labor certificate?
Can you post or PM your esperience?
hot I got my tattoo at Miller
ursosweet
10-02 08:55 PM
so when is a visa no. allocated?
say, i filed in july when visa bulletin was current and now its retrogressed to 2004. my PD is 2006. so can it happen that if all runs smooth and application is complted, i can get my GC, even tough visa bulletin may not have yet cut past my PD? so in a nut shell, visa no. is given when 485 is recipted or when its approved?
say, i filed in july when visa bulletin was current and now its retrogressed to 2004. my PD is 2006. so can it happen that if all runs smooth and application is complted, i can get my GC, even tough visa bulletin may not have yet cut past my PD? so in a nut shell, visa no. is given when 485 is recipted or when its approved?
more...
house Tattoo Name Designs
mps
06-04 11:26 AM
I had used 6 months of previous bank statement (original) and had mentioned the same in the letter written to consulate officer.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
tattoo hot veritas aequitas tattoos.
saro28
12-26 07:57 PM
It took about 4 weeks. Do you have H1-B extension? If so, I would suggest to use that instead of waiting for AP. The AP has new date instead of old one. Good Luck in getting the AP sooner.
agc2005,
Thanks for the reply.
I already send my EAD card. on Dec 11th. When did you resubmitted EAD Card and how many day USCIS took to reissue new EAD cards.
THanks
Any body who has simillary issue with AP and did you guys did. and how it took for u you to new cards.
Please send your experince.
Can I make this expedite. As I planning to go to India in Jan.
agc2005,
Thanks for the reply.
I already send my EAD card. on Dec 11th. When did you resubmitted EAD Card and how many day USCIS took to reissue new EAD cards.
THanks
Any body who has simillary issue with AP and did you guys did. and how it took for u you to new cards.
Please send your experince.
Can I make this expedite. As I planning to go to India in Jan.
more...
pictures 11:22 AM in Brand Name Tattoos
chintals
09-03 11:43 AM
I have got an LUD on 09/01/2009 for both the cases, but the status is still pending.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
dresses Name Tattoos Lettering Fonts
Appu
04-17 04:01 PM
Sign this petition on Sen Kennedy's website in support of immigration reform:
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
It may help...
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
It may help...
more...
makeup Last Name Tattoo
gcformeornot
04-07 01:48 PM
I hope it doesn't affect Employee (original labor) who have left GC employer using AC-21 with approved I-140 and after 180 days.
This interpretation is game changer for life of many EB immigrants. It should be implemented for going forward but at least should not affect those who used it by the interpretation of that time.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
This interpretation is game changer for life of many EB immigrants. It should be implemented for going forward but at least should not affect those who used it by the interpretation of that time.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
girlfriend someone#39;s name tattooed on
funny
09-16 02:05 PM
^bump^ ^bump^
hairstyles In Tattoo painting, traces of
surabhi
04-08 05:24 AM
This is serious and could affect quite a few.
Summary: you could be affected if ALL of the folllowing is true
1)you have a PD before July 16, 2007 ( likely case is EB3 I/C 2002/2003 PD)
2) you have left your original employer ( whether you stayed for 180 days after I-485 application to comply with AC-21 rule doesnt matter)
3) your original employer has used your labor to subsititute some on else ( before July 16,2007)
Remember you are affected even though you are the original beneficiary.
How did this case happen?
This happend because USCIS not following LIFO processing
1. The original applicat applied labor in April 2001
2. Labor approved in Jan 2002
3. Original applicant applied I-140 in April 2002
4. i-140 approved in July 2002
5. Original applicant applies for I-485 in Dec 2002
In Jan 2004, after more than year ( > 180 days and Ac-21 was enacted), original applicant leaves the employer, presuming that she is safe and covered under Ac-21
Employer promptly writes to USCIS asking to revoke I-140. The employer goes ahead and uses the labor for another person and files I-140
The USCIS apprves I-140 and subsequently I-485 for the subsituted beneficiary.
So how could USCIS approve a I-485 that was filed at least 18 months later than the original applicant. ( May be the subsituted applicant was from different chargeability country and hence could ge approved??)
Now the original applicant is screwed because USCIS cannnot approve 2 I-485 petitions based on same labor.
I feel for the original applicant. She played by rules all along, but got screwed anyway
Now you can see the chances of your case being caught in similar circumstrances
1. You are EB3, India/China with PD around 2002/2003
2. You filed I-485 sometime before July 2007 ( if you filed during July 2007 and you were with original employer at that time, this doesnt apply)
3. You left your original employer before July 2007
4. Unbeknownst to you, your original employer has subsituted your labor for another person.(before July 16, 2007)
5. that other person also filed for I-1485
6. Now its a timebomb waiting to explode
Summary: you could be affected if ALL of the folllowing is true
1)you have a PD before July 16, 2007 ( likely case is EB3 I/C 2002/2003 PD)
2) you have left your original employer ( whether you stayed for 180 days after I-485 application to comply with AC-21 rule doesnt matter)
3) your original employer has used your labor to subsititute some on else ( before July 16,2007)
Remember you are affected even though you are the original beneficiary.
How did this case happen?
This happend because USCIS not following LIFO processing
1. The original applicat applied labor in April 2001
2. Labor approved in Jan 2002
3. Original applicant applied I-140 in April 2002
4. i-140 approved in July 2002
5. Original applicant applies for I-485 in Dec 2002
In Jan 2004, after more than year ( > 180 days and Ac-21 was enacted), original applicant leaves the employer, presuming that she is safe and covered under Ac-21
Employer promptly writes to USCIS asking to revoke I-140. The employer goes ahead and uses the labor for another person and files I-140
The USCIS apprves I-140 and subsequently I-485 for the subsituted beneficiary.
So how could USCIS approve a I-485 that was filed at least 18 months later than the original applicant. ( May be the subsituted applicant was from different chargeability country and hence could ge approved??)
Now the original applicant is screwed because USCIS cannnot approve 2 I-485 petitions based on same labor.
I feel for the original applicant. She played by rules all along, but got screwed anyway
Now you can see the chances of your case being caught in similar circumstrances
1. You are EB3, India/China with PD around 2002/2003
2. You filed I-485 sometime before July 2007 ( if you filed during July 2007 and you were with original employer at that time, this doesnt apply)
3. You left your original employer before July 2007
4. Unbeknownst to you, your original employer has subsituted your labor for another person.(before July 16, 2007)
5. that other person also filed for I-1485
6. Now its a timebomb waiting to explode
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 01:36 PM
you are right, but isnt that found only when you are travelling outside of the USA? If I am in USA till i get a gc and then add my wife, how will anyone know if she is out of status ?
maximus
11-07 12:38 PM
Yeah uscis is pin pointing from anything to everything. Some case they are asking for client letters, which is usually tough for a consultant to get, but nothing to worry for genuine cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment