wellwishergc
04-10 07:01 PM
I think since your labor is cleared, you should be fine with going ahead with the H1 extension for 1 year. As I said, if you had your I-140 cleared, then you could have applied for a 3 year extension. The 365 day rule applies in case your labor is in the pending state. Let us assume that your labor is NOT approved. In such a case your labor should be pending more than 365 days prior to the expiry date of your current H1B. If not, you are not eligible for extension and you have to leave the country. Your case is different.
Please consult an attorney such as Murthy or Rajeev Khanna to get a confirmed approach.. They may charge you 100$ for a half an hour to 1 hour consultation, but it will be worth it. Better be right at the outset than be sorry later.
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
Please consult an attorney such as Murthy or Rajeev Khanna to get a confirmed approach.. They may charge you 100$ for a half an hour to 1 hour consultation, but it will be worth it. Better be right at the outset than be sorry later.
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
wallpaper 44 magnum gun. 44 magnum gun.
mallu
02-17 10:00 PM
I believe the spillover will come from ROW EB3
I was wondering what are the rules regarding the 'overflow' stuff. Any document ?
I was wondering what are the rules regarding the 'overflow' stuff. Any document ?
nomi
12-08 08:20 AM
DEAR FRIENDS OF AMERICAN PROGRAMMERS, ENGINEERS, NURSES, PHYSICAL THERAPISTS AND SCIENTISTS,
Our citizen network did quite a job again today.
I cannot predict. But as the Senate offices begin to close their phones down for the evening (even as the Senate continues to do business), our friends on the Hill are feeling much more confident that we will wake up tomorrow morning and find that Sen. Cornyn and and the tech industry lobbyists will NOT yet have succeeded.
Some, though, believe Cornyn will make another attempt tonight to get a vote on his bill to almost double H-1B visas and employment-based greencards next year. Once the phone lines are down, however, you just have to take a rest and know you did what you could and hope that your efforts were enough to pull us through this evening.
Your thousands of phone calls made a major impression on all Senate offices and on both Republican and Democratic leadership offices in the House.
Our Capitol Hill Team is hearing from many staffers that this has been one of those "Phone Phenomenon" days in which one issue practically ties every office up in knots.
AND NEARLY 100% OF THE CALLS ARE ON OUR SIDE -- AGAINST HELPING THE TECH COMPANIES, UNIVERSITIES AND HOSPITALS TO USE MORE FOREIGN LABOR TO DEPRESS THE WAGES OF THEIR AMERICAN WORKERS
You may not have any idea how important that has been.
Perhaps most importantly, it has made our best Senator allies exceptionally determined to block Sen. Cornyn (R-TX). Our latest nose count is that nobody is backing off their "holds" that are keeping the Cornyn SKIL Act legislation from reaching the floor of the Senate.
Cornyn and the tech industry lobbyists continue to try to strike deals with the Senators to get them to remove their HOLDS. But backed by what they see as an overwhelming constituency knowledge of the issue and constituency opposition to increased foreign importation, the "holding" Senators are not budging. We are unaware of any of them accepting a deal to change their position.
The reason individual Senators are able to exercise such power with these holds is because Cornyn has to get a lot of normal precedure waived in order to bring up his bill at the last minute like this.
Our understanding is that Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) could go ahead and bring Cornyn's bill to the floor even with the holds if he wants to. But then he would have to get at least 60 of the 100 votes to break the holds of their colleagues -- which is kind of a personal thing.
The more that you make this bill seem totally radioactive the less likely Sen. Frist will want to end his Senate career on such an explosive note, or that 60 Senators would want to vote to break the holds.
A big thank you to all who have helped again today. There are hundreds of thousands of households this evening spread across the country that will have a much happier Christmas if we succeed in blocking the threat to their jobs, wages and standard of living that Cornyn's bill represents.
Our nation's nurses, physical therapists, scientists, engineers and programmers have studied hard and worked hard and invested considerable money to be able to do these jobs. Why should our government import massive numbers of foreign workers (which no independent study has shown are needed) when that action would cause so many middle class American households to suffer?
At NumbersUSA, we spend a lot of our time championing better treatment for the poor. But we also believe in the protection of middle-class Americans. You who have acted today have done a great service to these households.
I expect to have marching orders for you first thing tomorrow morning based on what the situation has become by that time.
THANKS,
ROY
P.S. If you didn't read Prof. Norm Matloff's San Francisco Chronicle op-ed today, please do so now because it explains so well why we consider this fight against major increases in legal foreign workers to be as important as our fight against illegal immigration.
Read the article here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/hightech.html
Our citizen network did quite a job again today.
I cannot predict. But as the Senate offices begin to close their phones down for the evening (even as the Senate continues to do business), our friends on the Hill are feeling much more confident that we will wake up tomorrow morning and find that Sen. Cornyn and and the tech industry lobbyists will NOT yet have succeeded.
Some, though, believe Cornyn will make another attempt tonight to get a vote on his bill to almost double H-1B visas and employment-based greencards next year. Once the phone lines are down, however, you just have to take a rest and know you did what you could and hope that your efforts were enough to pull us through this evening.
Your thousands of phone calls made a major impression on all Senate offices and on both Republican and Democratic leadership offices in the House.
Our Capitol Hill Team is hearing from many staffers that this has been one of those "Phone Phenomenon" days in which one issue practically ties every office up in knots.
AND NEARLY 100% OF THE CALLS ARE ON OUR SIDE -- AGAINST HELPING THE TECH COMPANIES, UNIVERSITIES AND HOSPITALS TO USE MORE FOREIGN LABOR TO DEPRESS THE WAGES OF THEIR AMERICAN WORKERS
You may not have any idea how important that has been.
Perhaps most importantly, it has made our best Senator allies exceptionally determined to block Sen. Cornyn (R-TX). Our latest nose count is that nobody is backing off their "holds" that are keeping the Cornyn SKIL Act legislation from reaching the floor of the Senate.
Cornyn and the tech industry lobbyists continue to try to strike deals with the Senators to get them to remove their HOLDS. But backed by what they see as an overwhelming constituency knowledge of the issue and constituency opposition to increased foreign importation, the "holding" Senators are not budging. We are unaware of any of them accepting a deal to change their position.
The reason individual Senators are able to exercise such power with these holds is because Cornyn has to get a lot of normal precedure waived in order to bring up his bill at the last minute like this.
Our understanding is that Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) could go ahead and bring Cornyn's bill to the floor even with the holds if he wants to. But then he would have to get at least 60 of the 100 votes to break the holds of their colleagues -- which is kind of a personal thing.
The more that you make this bill seem totally radioactive the less likely Sen. Frist will want to end his Senate career on such an explosive note, or that 60 Senators would want to vote to break the holds.
A big thank you to all who have helped again today. There are hundreds of thousands of households this evening spread across the country that will have a much happier Christmas if we succeed in blocking the threat to their jobs, wages and standard of living that Cornyn's bill represents.
Our nation's nurses, physical therapists, scientists, engineers and programmers have studied hard and worked hard and invested considerable money to be able to do these jobs. Why should our government import massive numbers of foreign workers (which no independent study has shown are needed) when that action would cause so many middle class American households to suffer?
At NumbersUSA, we spend a lot of our time championing better treatment for the poor. But we also believe in the protection of middle-class Americans. You who have acted today have done a great service to these households.
I expect to have marching orders for you first thing tomorrow morning based on what the situation has become by that time.
THANKS,
ROY
P.S. If you didn't read Prof. Norm Matloff's San Francisco Chronicle op-ed today, please do so now because it explains so well why we consider this fight against major increases in legal foreign workers to be as important as our fight against illegal immigration.
Read the article here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/hightech.html
2011 Desert Eagle .44 Magnum Spring
Rockey
06-22 10:17 AM
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
******************
Request advice...
I know that I will have to stop working on August 11 2010 and I can't earn for as long as I don't have a valid EAD in my hand. I also know that it does not affect my Green Card I-485 app as long as I don't work without and EAD.
So what should I do from here on? Should I wait...I still have 50 days to hope to get my renewed EAD in. Should I call USCIS and request expedited processing of my case...but I haven't even received my receipt notices yet. Should I book and INFOPASS appt...but INFOPASS appointments for I-765 are only issued if it has been more than 90 days since the application was filed?
I will really appreciate any comments/suggestion regarding my case.
***********************
What should one do if he don't receive the nenewal EAD before the current EAD expires, can he continue working ? will the employer come to know ? having the receipt notice is enough ? what is the impact ? Please any one clarify. Thanks.
******************
Request advice...
I know that I will have to stop working on August 11 2010 and I can't earn for as long as I don't have a valid EAD in my hand. I also know that it does not affect my Green Card I-485 app as long as I don't work without and EAD.
So what should I do from here on? Should I wait...I still have 50 days to hope to get my renewed EAD in. Should I call USCIS and request expedited processing of my case...but I haven't even received my receipt notices yet. Should I book and INFOPASS appt...but INFOPASS appointments for I-765 are only issued if it has been more than 90 days since the application was filed?
I will really appreciate any comments/suggestion regarding my case.
***********************
What should one do if he don't receive the nenewal EAD before the current EAD expires, can he continue working ? will the employer come to know ? having the receipt notice is enough ? what is the impact ? Please any one clarify. Thanks.
more...
cygent
11-12 06:33 PM
Is that even if I-140 is not approved (pending), after I-485 is pending for 180 days, one can change jobs using the EAD?
http://www.visalaw.com/05may4/2may405.html
Read about the AC21 analysis - You can change with either H1 or EAD. You can also do so before 180 days, but not without some risk (case by case basis).
http://www.visalaw.com/05may4/2may405.html
Read about the AC21 analysis - You can change with either H1 or EAD. You can also do so before 180 days, but not without some risk (case by case basis).
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
nogc_noproblem
04-10 04:07 PM
Lou Liar Dobbs lied even in this case also. Couple of days back in his show he said more than 400k H1B applications filed. He never gave correct statistics when it comes to legal immigration. It is disheartening to see nobody could able to do anything about his biased campaign.
2010 44 magnum revolver.
sam0407
07-18 12:55 PM
There's no need for you to be negative.
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
ps57002:
Do not take it in negative sense, This is just my thoughts..
1. Flower campaign served it purpose, over doing anything will give produce negative results
2. As other IV members suggested we should come-up with someother innovative ideas. You can ask IV members for ideas, I sure our fellow members will share their thoughts.
Again, I am strongly believe any more flower campaign at this moment will produce negative result (i.e it will annoy the recipient).
I had the same thoughts when our IV members planned to send thank you flowers
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
ps57002:
Do not take it in negative sense, This is just my thoughts..
1. Flower campaign served it purpose, over doing anything will give produce negative results
2. As other IV members suggested we should come-up with someother innovative ideas. You can ask IV members for ideas, I sure our fellow members will share their thoughts.
Again, I am strongly believe any more flower campaign at this moment will produce negative result (i.e it will annoy the recipient).
I had the same thoughts when our IV members planned to send thank you flowers
more...
g03
05-16 10:29 AM
John Kyl from Arizona wants to put an amendment to make "current legals ineligible for this benefit for this if they go out of status from now on".
hair stock photo : 44 Magnum
mallu
08-06 03:29 AM
Like your thoughts on these topic... pardon me for my ignorance but whats the big deal about Name Check? will this take longer than the rest of the processing stages?
According to USCIS Ombudsman 1/3rd of cases are pending more than 1 year due to namecheck. Also there are many cases stuck for more than 3 years. E
According to USCIS Ombudsman 1/3rd of cases are pending more than 1 year due to namecheck. Also there are many cases stuck for more than 3 years. E
more...
aj1234567
10-04 06:29 PM
Hi Gurus-
One of my friends had received strange letter from the consulate saying that
We are obliged to inform you that petition for temporary employment for xyz InfoTech .has been returned to the department of homeland security(DHS) for reconsideration, in your case you did not meet the necessary criteria of the visa category, we have asked DHS to revoke the petition.
With this letter we are returning your passport. no additional information or documents are required from you.
We will contact you once a final decision has been made on your application
Please advice me why they send this letter and what necessary action we need to take..
Thanks
Aj
One of my friends had received strange letter from the consulate saying that
We are obliged to inform you that petition for temporary employment for xyz InfoTech .has been returned to the department of homeland security(DHS) for reconsideration, in your case you did not meet the necessary criteria of the visa category, we have asked DHS to revoke the petition.
With this letter we are returning your passport. no additional information or documents are required from you.
We will contact you once a final decision has been made on your application
Please advice me why they send this letter and what necessary action we need to take..
Thanks
Aj
hot .44 Magnum type revolvers,
quizzer
10-23 04:28 PM
Libra,
Congrats!!! Did it take an year for the RFE itself???
Romesh and naresh,
Any updates?
thanks,
Congrats!!! Did it take an year for the RFE itself???
Romesh and naresh,
Any updates?
thanks,
more...
house Magnum Research
anurag
02-12 02:12 PM
Freakin_GC,
I am in the same boat as you. My wife was born in another country besides India, hence the Cross Chargeability. However our (Wife and my) 485s have been filed already. I am not sure how to get into the ROW boat.
All I can offer now is that I'll post whatever I hear from my lawyer. Let me know what you can find from your end.
Regards,
Anurag
I am in the same boat as you. My wife was born in another country besides India, hence the Cross Chargeability. However our (Wife and my) 485s have been filed already. I am not sure how to get into the ROW boat.
All I can offer now is that I'll post whatever I hear from my lawyer. Let me know what you can find from your end.
Regards,
Anurag
tattoo a .44 Magnum revolver.
nousername
04-07 01:48 PM
Thanks for a quick explanation.. So basically we are hosed if we leave our employer on a bad note and he decides to use our labor for someone else.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
more...
pictures Ruger Vaquero .44 magnum
IndiaNJ
08-20 12:11 PM
My 485 got approved on 8/8/8 , where as wife's case is still pending , my wife called the 1.800 number , they told it has been assigned to the officer , and he has to make a decision.
dresses Desert Eagle pistol
leoindiano
03-17 12:50 PM
I agree, I wanted to take everybodys perspective on my guess. Also, 2004 is the only year which can be predictable, after that everything went haywire for EB2.
more...
makeup 44 magnum pistol revolver.
santb1975
03-24 12:37 PM
I am listening to this now
girlfriend a Model 29 .44 Magnum
gcpain
06-25 11:10 AM
I was working with employer -A till 2006 and got I140 approved (June 2003 priority date) in EB3. In November 2006 I joined employer B as it is good for my carrier. I talk to employer A (body shopper) and he is ready to support for my green card as I worked for him for six long years and still he did not cancel my old H1B. My main aim here is to apply I485 as soon as I can.
1. I have two options here my old employer (A) is body-shopper. So he will agree for both future or current employment. I have very good permanent job and bright future prospects with new employer (B). In this case what you guys advice me? Apply I485 as future employment or quit present job and join old employer (A) and apply I485 as current employment?
2. If I do not join old employer (with whom I have I140 approved) now, in this case what are my options for I485 applying? (Only future employment I485/ I can file current employment I485 and not drawing any salary from old employer )
3. Will I485 as future employment has any problems?
4. Can I use AC21 after 180 days on my I485 future employment application?
5. My new employer (B) already applied PERM LC for my GC in EB2 three months back and did not here anything from Atlanta DOL till now. What you guys advice me? Is it worthful to wait for this new EB2 LC or apply I485 as future employment with approved I140-EB3 with priority date June 2003.
I am in really dilemma and unable to decide. Appreciate your advice in this matter. Thanks in advance to all your replies and wish you best of luck.
1. I have two options here my old employer (A) is body-shopper. So he will agree for both future or current employment. I have very good permanent job and bright future prospects with new employer (B). In this case what you guys advice me? Apply I485 as future employment or quit present job and join old employer (A) and apply I485 as current employment?
2. If I do not join old employer (with whom I have I140 approved) now, in this case what are my options for I485 applying? (Only future employment I485/ I can file current employment I485 and not drawing any salary from old employer )
3. Will I485 as future employment has any problems?
4. Can I use AC21 after 180 days on my I485 future employment application?
5. My new employer (B) already applied PERM LC for my GC in EB2 three months back and did not here anything from Atlanta DOL till now. What you guys advice me? Is it worthful to wait for this new EB2 LC or apply I485 as future employment with approved I140-EB3 with priority date June 2003.
I am in really dilemma and unable to decide. Appreciate your advice in this matter. Thanks in advance to all your replies and wish you best of luck.
hairstyles .44 magnum revolver,
mhtanim
02-23 09:40 PM
If PD is not current, will USCIS process your I-485 application?
NSC indicates that they are processing I-485 applications with notice date of July 30, 3007. Does it mean they have processed all the I-485 applications received (ND) prior to that date even if PD was not current for all those applications?
NSC indicates that they are processing I-485 applications with notice date of July 30, 3007. Does it mean they have processed all the I-485 applications received (ND) prior to that date even if PD was not current for all those applications?
krishnam70
08-14 04:13 PM
A woman who was traveling alone in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream.
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
Agreed . Joy of giving is a great concept if its voluntary. If we place a condition that this is the minimum amount u can pay or no way we might lose a few members who might want to contribute lesser amounts..
cheers
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
Agreed . Joy of giving is a great concept if its voluntary. If we place a condition that this is the minimum amount u can pay or no way we might lose a few members who might want to contribute lesser amounts..
cheers
immilaw
09-21 08:37 AM
I filed 140 to VSC. Would it be transfered to TSC. It is still pending. I got a RFE on 140. Should i send the docs to VSC or TSC. Can anyone please answer this.
Thanks.
You should send the documents to the service center which issued the RFE. The mail address of the service center should appear on the RFE.
Thanks.
You should send the documents to the service center which issued the RFE. The mail address of the service center should appear on the RFE.
No comments:
Post a Comment