Jaime
09-11 05:21 PM
You've worked hard for what you have! VERY HARD!!!! Remember the grueling exams and study back home to be the best and get to the U.S. Remember your sufferin, hard study and hard work once in the U.S. to be the best and contribute to this country!
Don't let the Reverse Brain Drain suck you in!!!!
Don't let the Reverse Brain Drain suck you in!!!!
wallpaper Oldsmobile Intrigue GL
Jerrome
02-20 05:23 PM
I could not find mine (though i don't know the case number) with the priority date and employer name i could not find mine, by anyway can we find out the category (EB1,EB2 or EB3) from this databases.
I saw some poll happened in IV to get this information.
I saw some poll happened in IV to get this information.
watertown
03-04 11:02 AM
Gurus,
I'm in Boston area and would like to know your opinion if I should file WOM!!!!
My case was filed in Aug, 2006 and I-485 was transferred to local office for interview on May 22, 2007. The interview went well and the lady officer indicated that I should get my card in 1 month!! That day was so nice!!!
Anyway, the reason for interview was I guess the previous I-485 submitted by my ex-wife after our seperation to put me in trouble in 2001 but I never took any benefit for that and I hand-delivered a letter to the IO when they asked me to come for interview in 2002. I explained that it should have been abandoned coz I sent letter even at the time for finger-print notice! Long story short, my ex and I had fight and I called the cop who took both of us to the custody and in the morning let us go. I didn't see the judge and.
So on this last I-485 (EB-2 ROW) I answered the question NO of if I had ever filled any immigration petition and NO to if I had ever been arrested.
Last year I was getting anxious when the card didn't arrive and Infopass told me that I was stuck in FBI-name check! I asked the congressman Ed Markey and his office told that my name check was cleared in Dec, 2006!!! I took another Infopass and again IO told me about Namecheck but when I told him about the info provided by Congressman, he then told me that it was going thru additional review!!
Now , guys....hsall I file a WOM? Whats your take?
I'm in Boston area and would like to know your opinion if I should file WOM!!!!
My case was filed in Aug, 2006 and I-485 was transferred to local office for interview on May 22, 2007. The interview went well and the lady officer indicated that I should get my card in 1 month!! That day was so nice!!!
Anyway, the reason for interview was I guess the previous I-485 submitted by my ex-wife after our seperation to put me in trouble in 2001 but I never took any benefit for that and I hand-delivered a letter to the IO when they asked me to come for interview in 2002. I explained that it should have been abandoned coz I sent letter even at the time for finger-print notice! Long story short, my ex and I had fight and I called the cop who took both of us to the custody and in the morning let us go. I didn't see the judge and.
So on this last I-485 (EB-2 ROW) I answered the question NO of if I had ever filled any immigration petition and NO to if I had ever been arrested.
Last year I was getting anxious when the card didn't arrive and Infopass told me that I was stuck in FBI-name check! I asked the congressman Ed Markey and his office told that my name check was cleared in Dec, 2006!!! I took another Infopass and again IO told me about Namecheck but when I told him about the info provided by Congressman, he then told me that it was going thru additional review!!
Now , guys....hsall I file a WOM? Whats your take?
2011 Sandstone Metallic 2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue GL with Neutral interior
psam
12-15 08:49 PM
I am the same boat. My wife got her card wheras I got a response to the SR we raised that my card was sent the same day as my 485 approval notice and it might been lost in mail. I was asked to file I-90. I called customer service several times and talked to 2nd level IO and all suggested to file I-90. I took infopass but gave a shot again by talking to 2nd level IO who went over my case and said that my card was never created so she raised a SR.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
more...
little_willy
09-26 12:52 AM
I guess all these options are possible as long as you maintain your H-1B.
yanj
12-16 12:46 PM
You can not work after 7/9/2007.
The end of the OPT will determine when you must stop working.
The 60 days grace period is only for you to take care of business before you go back home. In your case you must wait for 2 months and 24 days before returning to work otherwise you will be in violation of your status.
andy
THANKS
The end of the OPT will determine when you must stop working.
The 60 days grace period is only for you to take care of business before you go back home. In your case you must wait for 2 months and 24 days before returning to work otherwise you will be in violation of your status.
andy
THANKS
more...
snathan
04-29 10:05 PM
Not fair, Mr. GC Vivek. Debunking based on personal outlook. Do you watch out for Indian start-ups for a living? I doubt. Start-ups are just start-ups. None will be famous, until years later, when some of them slowly start getting some success. Do you expect every 10 person company to get mention in timesofindia.com? HA! What you say above, is what is nonsense.
May be 10% might have become entrepreneurs...? Definitely not everyone has started a 10person or even 1 person company....People are doing good but they just work as programmers or so called project managers...you know its not a big deal to become a Project manager in India..
But 150K entrepreneurs...:p
May be 10% might have become entrepreneurs...? Definitely not everyone has started a 10person or even 1 person company....People are doing good but they just work as programmers or so called project managers...you know its not a big deal to become a Project manager in India..
But 150K entrepreneurs...:p
2010 2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue GL -
kicca
01-29 10:07 AM
^^^
more...
tnite
06-26 02:35 PM
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
If I am not wrong that amendment has been changed considerably.
the new amendment states that Employer abased GC will be phased out in 5 yrs and then merit based kicks in
H1B quota for US Master's Grad is 40K according to the amendment.
If I get the link I will post it
If I am not wrong that amendment has been changed considerably.
the new amendment states that Employer abased GC will be phased out in 5 yrs and then merit based kicks in
H1B quota for US Master's Grad is 40K according to the amendment.
If I get the link I will post it
hair 2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue Gl
senthil1
04-15 01:40 PM
Hi
Your post does look like anti immigrant who want to make fun of potential immigrants or undermining US citizenship by immigrants. I hope those observations are incorrect
Hello, I think I made a mistake. I recently went from GC to citizenship and it cost me my job. I was
fired shortly after becoming a citizen. I am from a country other than yours. Sorry about that. There is no particular website that represents immigration from the country I immigrated from.
The employer replaced me with a visa card holder. After I trained him, I was fired and my boss was fired.
I am a skilled programmer with advanced degree. Employers from the dice.com website refuse to even acknowledge my resumes. Being unemployed is no way to be a new citizen. So I am ready to give up searching and move to India,in search of programming work. All I want to do is write code. I do not desire to make a point or to annoy anyone, I just want to work and write source code and try to get on with my life.
What are my chances to find work with the giant IT corporations of India? I am ready to move today. Can I revoke my US citizenship and immigrate to your country??? Sorry sorry sorry if this offends anyone, I do not mean to annoy any of you. I just want to have a job and write code and I will be on my way.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for permitting me to present my delima to this your website.
abby
Your post does look like anti immigrant who want to make fun of potential immigrants or undermining US citizenship by immigrants. I hope those observations are incorrect
Hello, I think I made a mistake. I recently went from GC to citizenship and it cost me my job. I was
fired shortly after becoming a citizen. I am from a country other than yours. Sorry about that. There is no particular website that represents immigration from the country I immigrated from.
The employer replaced me with a visa card holder. After I trained him, I was fired and my boss was fired.
I am a skilled programmer with advanced degree. Employers from the dice.com website refuse to even acknowledge my resumes. Being unemployed is no way to be a new citizen. So I am ready to give up searching and move to India,in search of programming work. All I want to do is write code. I do not desire to make a point or to annoy anyone, I just want to work and write source code and try to get on with my life.
What are my chances to find work with the giant IT corporations of India? I am ready to move today. Can I revoke my US citizenship and immigrate to your country??? Sorry sorry sorry if this offends anyone, I do not mean to annoy any of you. I just want to have a job and write code and I will be on my way.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for permitting me to present my delima to this your website.
abby
more...
stuckinmuck
05-30 01:27 PM
Have written to my Immigration Coordinator who will confirm with the company lawyer if this rule applies to 'pending' I-140 approvals or will 'filed' and 'approved' I-140 (prior to May-15-07) be safe.
Will let you know his response.
__________________________________________
Contribution so far: $1000
Webfaxes sent to all Senators
Emails sent to Senators, Representatives, Reporters
Will let you know his response.
__________________________________________
Contribution so far: $1000
Webfaxes sent to all Senators
Emails sent to Senators, Representatives, Reporters
hot 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue, Used
immigrant2007
06-16 11:30 PM
Hi- When I started off with the green card process, I had not idea about what most of the things meant. I joined a very reputable Fortune 500 company in 2006 (the same year I came to the US on a H1B), and started my GC process in 2007. The company offered me an pre-approved labor with a 2006 PD, which had a matching requirement w.r.t job description and salary.
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Please don't start off with the jumping the queue argument. When I used the labor substitution, it was perfectly legal, and didn't even know what a priority date is :-)
Thanks.
you will be fine dear friend. you will be able to use your 2005 PD.
how;s miami?
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Please don't start off with the jumping the queue argument. When I used the labor substitution, it was perfectly legal, and didn't even know what a priority date is :-)
Thanks.
you will be fine dear friend. you will be able to use your 2005 PD.
how;s miami?
more...
house 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue GL
sunny1000
04-20 06:25 PM
When it comes to immigration matters, my mantra is safe than sorry. I would still make the trip to the CBP office and get a date noted on the I-94. This way if you want to extend their stay, etc you will be covered.
I second that statement. Moreover, this gives you the peace of mind knowing that somebody at CBP won't screw up entering the I-94 info when your parents surrender this at the airline or give a hard time for a lack of date on the I-94 when your parents want to travel again.
I second that statement. Moreover, this gives you the peace of mind knowing that somebody at CBP won't screw up entering the I-94 info when your parents surrender this at the airline or give a hard time for a lack of date on the I-94 when your parents want to travel again.
tattoo 2001 Oldsmobile Intrigue GLS
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
pictures 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue GLS
Vitriol
04-13 09:12 AM
Gurus, your inputs please: Can I take up a position in India with an American Firm while on H1B?
dresses Oldsmobile Intrigue Gl - $2600
Lasantha
07-30 07:33 AM
Are you sure man? Have you seen the recent threads on EB3-I Vs EB2-I and also the ones on EB-I Vs EB-ROW some time back? :cool:
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice.
more...
makeup 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue GL
bigboy007
12-10 02:51 PM
My Labor approval uses something that starts with 030-16-**** but there is nothing in SOC with 16 are they changed recently? any clue? + what is the issue of 140 porting if we are not informing USCIS about AC21 so how are we porting 140 ? is it automatically?
girlfriend 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue Gl
bijualex29
08-14 02:54 PM
This is purley an example of Mailroom confusion.
You may be able to resend it clearly explaining the Mail room error.
It is best to avoid this kind of confusion. This Mail room people are not trained well to calculate or think like you and me are thinking.
You might have seen the cashier at walmart. If you buy worth of 20$ and you give 50$. They need calculator to figure it our how much to return.
You may be able to resend it clearly explaining the Mail room error.
It is best to avoid this kind of confusion. This Mail room people are not trained well to calculate or think like you and me are thinking.
You might have seen the cashier at walmart. If you buy worth of 20$ and you give 50$. They need calculator to figure it our how much to return.
hairstyles 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue GL
shishya
09-27 02:19 AM
AFAIK, your visa status will not affect day-trading. You just need to specify the gain/loss when you file taxes (like anyone).
That said, I believe you are aware of the requirement that you need to have a minimum of $25K in your account to do day-trading. And also the risks involved in it.
My 2c as some one who tried it, play only with money you can afford to loose (as you WILL most of the time) and get out if you have to, without emotional attachment.
Have fun and BE SAFE!!!
Thanks for the honest and to-the-point answer Yagw. Yes, I am aware of the risks involved and therefore never EVER exceed the threshold I set for myself. I am not new to stock market having been in it for the past four years -- not that that makes me ANY safer than a newbie though.
Appreciate your advise of caution, will definitely keep that in mind.
Thanks!
That said, I believe you are aware of the requirement that you need to have a minimum of $25K in your account to do day-trading. And also the risks involved in it.
My 2c as some one who tried it, play only with money you can afford to loose (as you WILL most of the time) and get out if you have to, without emotional attachment.
Have fun and BE SAFE!!!
Thanks for the honest and to-the-point answer Yagw. Yes, I am aware of the risks involved and therefore never EVER exceed the threshold I set for myself. I am not new to stock market having been in it for the past four years -- not that that makes me ANY safer than a newbie though.
Appreciate your advise of caution, will definitely keep that in mind.
Thanks!
phillyag
05-30 04:43 PM
2. I140 receipt
3. I485 receipt
Would photocopies do for the above 2 docs ?
3. I485 receipt
Would photocopies do for the above 2 docs ?
vinnysuru
04-01 10:10 AM
Hello Everyone -
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
Hi Piyu, Wow you are lucky. I am from India EB2 (Jan 2006 PD). Non Concurrent with approved 140 Filed 485 on 25th July 07. FP in Sep 07. Haven't heard a word since then. I called NSC last week and they said my name check is pending. Derivative cleared. They have moved processing dates back to June 8th, so they don't expect my case to assigned to an officer for review at least for 2-3 months.
Would you mind sharing specifics of your case?
1. What was your exact PD (Day?)
2. Which service center did you file with?
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW?
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country?
Good luck! Yes, now you would just have to wait for PD to become current and you will get approval. Check . Lots of approvals in last 2 weeks for people in similar situations! More in come this month as PD's move forward today.
I am Happy for you! Gives all of us hope.
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
Hi Piyu, Wow you are lucky. I am from India EB2 (Jan 2006 PD). Non Concurrent with approved 140 Filed 485 on 25th July 07. FP in Sep 07. Haven't heard a word since then. I called NSC last week and they said my name check is pending. Derivative cleared. They have moved processing dates back to June 8th, so they don't expect my case to assigned to an officer for review at least for 2-3 months.
Would you mind sharing specifics of your case?
1. What was your exact PD (Day?)
2. Which service center did you file with?
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW?
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country?
Good luck! Yes, now you would just have to wait for PD to become current and you will get approval. Check . Lots of approvals in last 2 weeks for people in similar situations! More in come this month as PD's move forward today.
I am Happy for you! Gives all of us hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment