Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
wallpaper Free Backgrounds for Desktops
abalu400
07-19 08:34 PM
Friends,
In my case, in the past year or so, I had one year when I was partially on the bench and so my W2 does not show enough amount, definitely lower than the LCA petition. So, I am in this position. personally, I would like to file next year so that this bad year is at least a year out....and maybe I can get away with filing just one W2.....
What are your thoughts?
In my case, in the past year or so, I had one year when I was partially on the bench and so my W2 does not show enough amount, definitely lower than the LCA petition. So, I am in this position. personally, I would like to file next year so that this bad year is at least a year out....and maybe I can get away with filing just one W2.....
What are your thoughts?
wandmaker
09-30 09:58 AM
Thanks Chanduv23...this really helps to keep up the spirit.
Does anyone know how long does it take to get the mail?
You should have it by end of the week or before middle of next week.
Does anyone know how long does it take to get the mail?
You should have it by end of the week or before middle of next week.
2011 Download Backgrounds for
sledge_hammer
02-09 03:44 PM
Please keep this thread alive ...
more...
loudoggs
11-21 12:00 AM
You are from ROW....here are some things to consider....
Is your new employer filing your GC under EB-2? If the answer is yes, then you should definitely take the new job and re-file GC and not worry about your EB-3 perm that is pending.
If your new employer is going to file under EB-3, then you have to evaluate which job is better for you (as far as pay, position etc.). If you think the new job is much better than what you have now, then I think you should still go for it. Your PD is very recent and a PD of Aug 2007 and a PD of (say) Feb/Mar 2008 has approximately the same value (according to me).
You have a valid H-1B until June 2009 and since you will apply for your perm LC before June 2008, you are eligible for atleast 1 year H-1B renewals.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Is your new employer filing your GC under EB-2? If the answer is yes, then you should definitely take the new job and re-file GC and not worry about your EB-3 perm that is pending.
If your new employer is going to file under EB-3, then you have to evaluate which job is better for you (as far as pay, position etc.). If you think the new job is much better than what you have now, then I think you should still go for it. Your PD is very recent and a PD of Aug 2007 and a PD of (say) Feb/Mar 2008 has approximately the same value (according to me).
You have a valid H-1B until June 2009 and since you will apply for your perm LC before June 2008, you are eligible for atleast 1 year H-1B renewals.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
pmamp
07-12 10:24 AM
One possible issue with this assessment is that CIS Ombudsman released the report on June 11th and ISCIS published 'THE JULY 2007 BULLETIN' on June 12th. That may mean someone in USCIS decided ultra fast as to make all the dates current or they (USCIS top brass) knew about this report draft.
I don't know if this report really caused USCIS to come out with that bulletin. there is something else under the hood which caused this reaction....http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
I don't know if this report really caused USCIS to come out with that bulletin. there is something else under the hood which caused this reaction....http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
more...
seekerofpeace
09-13 09:38 AM
Folks,
I am really amazed to see the verbal war of words between these two artificially created groups aka the lines of "Divide and Rule" policy by the erstwhile masters of our country...
I can understand the feelings but the profanity and the language used won't lead us anywhere.
Frustration is the only common thing among the EBI applicants...some more some less...
I know of a lot of EB2s like me who came to this country for higher studies more than a decade back and got delayed in filing for their residency and had to suffer...While many who came with a job here and filed using EB3 then, have their parents as residents now....
Why is there no anger towards the many L1 managers who get residency through EB1.without much educational qualifications and forget about national interest waiver...I know a few, who came in 2006 and are residents within a year or so....
I also saw many of my friends through unfair labor substitutions got ahead of me unfairly and are now citizens...
Bottomline is people won't apply in a particular category unless they think it is best in their interests...In this economy most companies are tightening their purse.....it is a common fact that 90% of EB I applicants are software engineers.the demand of which will wane over the years in the immediate future and next generation technology demand will increase aka green and biotech....and much water has flowed in Mississipi since the days of Y2K when even people with fraud degrees and vague backgrounds came here and flourished......
The infighting reminds me of the crab story in which of all the baskets of various sea animals/fishes in a fish market the only basket whose lid was open was one with crabs...a buyer when enquired the uniqueness of that crab basket was promptly told by the seller that in this basket if any crab wants to go out and be free all the other crabs will join and pull it back to the basket so I don't have to worry.......
Let's not be these crabs....I am sure there exists common grounds in IV otherwise if this continues I am sure there will be a vertical split in IV...between EB2 and EBI..and ROW will laugh at us.........
SoP
I am really amazed to see the verbal war of words between these two artificially created groups aka the lines of "Divide and Rule" policy by the erstwhile masters of our country...
I can understand the feelings but the profanity and the language used won't lead us anywhere.
Frustration is the only common thing among the EBI applicants...some more some less...
I know of a lot of EB2s like me who came to this country for higher studies more than a decade back and got delayed in filing for their residency and had to suffer...While many who came with a job here and filed using EB3 then, have their parents as residents now....
Why is there no anger towards the many L1 managers who get residency through EB1.without much educational qualifications and forget about national interest waiver...I know a few, who came in 2006 and are residents within a year or so....
I also saw many of my friends through unfair labor substitutions got ahead of me unfairly and are now citizens...
Bottomline is people won't apply in a particular category unless they think it is best in their interests...In this economy most companies are tightening their purse.....it is a common fact that 90% of EB I applicants are software engineers.the demand of which will wane over the years in the immediate future and next generation technology demand will increase aka green and biotech....and much water has flowed in Mississipi since the days of Y2K when even people with fraud degrees and vague backgrounds came here and flourished......
The infighting reminds me of the crab story in which of all the baskets of various sea animals/fishes in a fish market the only basket whose lid was open was one with crabs...a buyer when enquired the uniqueness of that crab basket was promptly told by the seller that in this basket if any crab wants to go out and be free all the other crabs will join and pull it back to the basket so I don't have to worry.......
Let's not be these crabs....I am sure there exists common grounds in IV otherwise if this continues I am sure there will be a vertical split in IV...between EB2 and EBI..and ROW will laugh at us.........
SoP
2010 Backgrounds for childrens
hemasar
06-22 09:38 AM
Due to time contraints doctor sent me for a chest x-ray and skipped the TB skin test. Chest x-ray came back negative. Question: Is a TB skin test required if a chest x-ray is negative? No remarks were made as to why TB skin test was not given. Should suggest, to a reasonable person, that no active TB is present
My colleague told me that he took only chest X-ray and not done skin test he got his GC.
My colleague told me that he took only chest X-ray and not done skin test he got his GC.
more...
Ramba
01-23 06:51 PM
Sorry for little confusion.
What I mean was,
- I filed I-485 for me and my wife
- then after 180 days I switched to a new company with H1B transfer.
- So, I am still in H1B status.
- But my wife (secondary applicant) is using EAD based on I-485 and working.
Which means we used AC21 for portability of our I-140 and I-485 cases.
Now, we are planning to travel home to India. My wife need to use AP and I will still be using H1B visa.
So, my question was, whether there will be issue at Port of Entry when primary applicant(which is me) is still in H1B visa with pending I-485 and my wife is using EAD with AP?
Normally if both have independent valid travel document, you are fine. It does not make any difference if primary use H1B and spouse use AP, but it may confuse the IO at POE, if they ask lot of questions, (who is your employer, Are you working for GC sponsering employer etc..)
IO at POE may not know all the rules regarding AC21/485/AP/H1 etc.. If you are entering in H1, the natural tendency that your spose will enter in H4. If you answer properly, you are fine..
What I mean was,
- I filed I-485 for me and my wife
- then after 180 days I switched to a new company with H1B transfer.
- So, I am still in H1B status.
- But my wife (secondary applicant) is using EAD based on I-485 and working.
Which means we used AC21 for portability of our I-140 and I-485 cases.
Now, we are planning to travel home to India. My wife need to use AP and I will still be using H1B visa.
So, my question was, whether there will be issue at Port of Entry when primary applicant(which is me) is still in H1B visa with pending I-485 and my wife is using EAD with AP?
Normally if both have independent valid travel document, you are fine. It does not make any difference if primary use H1B and spouse use AP, but it may confuse the IO at POE, if they ask lot of questions, (who is your employer, Are you working for GC sponsering employer etc..)
IO at POE may not know all the rules regarding AC21/485/AP/H1 etc.. If you are entering in H1, the natural tendency that your spose will enter in H4. If you answer properly, you are fine..
hair Backgrounds for a photoshop
skagitswimmer
June 6th, 2005, 08:35 AM
Would the 20D or D1MkII have greater tolerances i.e. wider range algorithms in the camera?
more...
Sakthisagar
01-25 09:02 AM
Please file a new H1B extension petition with a copy of contract between the client and your company.. the actual contract, if the client/vendor do not want to share that with your attorney then ask the client/vendor to directly send that to USCIS fax number and ask your attorney to mention in a seperate letter that client contract/letter (copy of original) will be sent by their attorney in so and so time.
I had the RFE on Sept 2009 on premium processing, I have done tha above and got approved for an year even though my I-140 is approved on 2005 and 10 years in the USA.
Please do needful and be on status.
I had the RFE on Sept 2009 on premium processing, I have done tha above and got approved for an year even though my I-140 is approved on 2005 and 10 years in the USA.
Please do needful and be on status.
hot Backgrounds for business cards
wait_2010
07-25 02:39 PM
I believe people who suggest that they follow career before GC are right to an extent. But to me the you have to chose..losing freedom to chose ur employer vs losing one career oppoertunity ...If u have GC you can chose from other opportunities and surely there will be plenty..Especially u r close to GC, it might be worth the risk and wait to get GC..even if u get an EAD , it will make life simple for ur wife and urself as she can get a job in any place and any employer and u will have the same option...Nothing beats freedom...
It seems odd that the BIG consulting company wants to use EB3 to tie u for long time as they know the advantage for themselves..Ironical ..rules to protect americans end up hurting them because companies love H1Bs as they can use them as they want...
It seems odd that the BIG consulting company wants to use EB3 to tie u for long time as they know the advantage for themselves..Ironical ..rules to protect americans end up hurting them because companies love H1Bs as they can use them as they want...
more...
house school ackgrounds for web
monkeyman
02-26 11:28 PM
You are all set if you have gone through your FP.
tattoo Moving Backgrounds for Windows
cessua
10-13 07:09 PM
How much of an argument we have if US keeps toping rankings of most competitive countries to do business in the world?
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
more...
pictures simple ackgrounds for
pappu
03-17 03:55 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1294871282792.shtm
Teleconference Recap: FOIA: How Is It Working For You?
On December 6, 2010, the Ombudsman's Office hosted a public teleconference on "FOIA: How Is It Working for You?" where the Ombudsman's Office interviewed Terry Sloan, Acting Center Director, National Records Center and Jill Eggleston, the Assistant Center Director ofFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) Operations for the National Records Center at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Inquiries to the Ombudsman's Office have identified FOIA requests as an area where the public continues to experience frustration in relation to citizenship and immigration services. Please direct any inquiries related to the topics raised in this teleconference to Margaret Gleason, Senior Advisor to the Ombudsman, at margaret.gleason@dhs.gov. If you have a concern with your USCIS FOIA request and have been unable to resolve the issue with USCIS, the Ombudsman's Office may be able to help.
Freedom of Information Act
Under the FOIA statute, "any person" may request documents from a U.S. government agency. This applies to both U.S. citizens and to citizens of foreign countries. The law allows 20 business days for response to a FOIA request. USCIS has been unable to make that deadline to date, although processing has improved in the past few years. Agencies may withhold information from a FOIA requester under certain exemptions. The law does not allow an agency to withhold information for other reasons, such as possible embarrassment to the agency.
USCIS Processing of FOIA Requests
USCIS FOIA processing is consolidated at the National Records Center (NRC). Prior to 2005, FOIA requests were decentralized, and could be handled on the local level by USCIS. In FY 2006, USCIS had a backlog of more than 88,000 FOIA requests. Jill Eggleston reported in the teleconference that in FY 2010 the backlog was down to 8,000 cases.
There are currently 120 NRC employees, with 30 more new employees authorized for hiring in 2011. Ms. Eggleston informed teleconference participants that current USCIS processing times for FOIA requests vary according to the type of request and that USCIS sorts FOIA requests into three separate tracks. Ms Eggleston also noted the processing time for each type of request.
* Track One FOIA Requests, or simple document requests, are those that request only a specific document, such as a copy of a particular immigration petition.
Processing time: 43 working days
* Track Two FOIA Requests are those where an entire file is requested.
Processing time: 34 working days
* Track Three FOIA Requests are those requests where the individual has a pending hearing scheduled before the Immigration Court.
Processing time: 59 working days
In the FOIA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009, the processing times published for USCIS show an average processing time of 215 business days for Track One FOIA requests, 344 business days for Track Two FOIA requests, and an average of 60 business days for Track Three FOIA Requests.
USCIS FOIA Process
As stated on the teleconference, FOIA requests to USCIS can be made with a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) or by written request submitted by mail to USCIS NRC, P.O. Box 648010, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-8010; or by fax to 816-350-5785. Most FOIA requests are free, but if fees exceed $25, the requester will be notified in advance of such a charge. Ms. Eggleston stated that a web-based request system would be established in the near future and will be rolled out in two phases: Phase One will be for media requests, while Phase Two will be for all other requests. Currently, the status of a FOIA request can be checked with an NRC receipt number through the FOIA link on USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov).
Appeals of USCIS FOIA denials or material withheld under FOIA exemptions may be filed to USCIS FOIA Appeals, 150 Space Center Loop, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-2139.
As noted in the teleconference, more information on filing FOIA requests with other Department of Homeland Security components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is available at DHS | Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act (http://www.dhs.gov/foia).
Expedite Criteria
By regulation, there are narrow expedite criteria that may allow a requester priority to receive a FOIA response. Expedites will only be granted for cases that present an imminent threat to life or safety requiring the FOIA response, or where there is an urgency to inform the public.
Overall, FOIA requests are handled on a first-come, first-served basis, which is only differentiated based on the three tracks described above, or the occasional expedite case.
Teleconference Questions
In response to questions from callers on the teleconference, Ms. Eggleston stated that certain information is required with a FOIA request to verify identity including name, address, date of birth, and place of birth. Without this information, a FOIA request is incomplete. If information in a file is incorrect, a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) can be used to correct information under the Privacy Act. Another caller asked if USCIS could retrieve an envelope with a postmark from a particular file under FOIA. This documentation might be needed to support an application for adjustment of status under . Ms. Eggleston stated that there is a separate receipt file where payments to USCIS are recorded. If a receipt is requested, the FOIA request should specify that the NRC should search the alien's receipt file.
If records are requested on behalf of a child, Ms. Eggleston stated that names of parents will be requested, and USCIS may ask for proof of parent or guardian relationship before sending information to that party.
Ms. Eggleston said that sometimes in denying FOIA requests for persons with final removal orders, USCIS invokes the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine' under Meddah v. Reno, No. 98-1444, (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 1998). She also said that her office may refer such FOIA requests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE
Teleconference Recap: FOIA: How Is It Working For You?
On December 6, 2010, the Ombudsman's Office hosted a public teleconference on "FOIA: How Is It Working for You?" where the Ombudsman's Office interviewed Terry Sloan, Acting Center Director, National Records Center and Jill Eggleston, the Assistant Center Director ofFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) Operations for the National Records Center at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Inquiries to the Ombudsman's Office have identified FOIA requests as an area where the public continues to experience frustration in relation to citizenship and immigration services. Please direct any inquiries related to the topics raised in this teleconference to Margaret Gleason, Senior Advisor to the Ombudsman, at margaret.gleason@dhs.gov. If you have a concern with your USCIS FOIA request and have been unable to resolve the issue with USCIS, the Ombudsman's Office may be able to help.
Freedom of Information Act
Under the FOIA statute, "any person" may request documents from a U.S. government agency. This applies to both U.S. citizens and to citizens of foreign countries. The law allows 20 business days for response to a FOIA request. USCIS has been unable to make that deadline to date, although processing has improved in the past few years. Agencies may withhold information from a FOIA requester under certain exemptions. The law does not allow an agency to withhold information for other reasons, such as possible embarrassment to the agency.
USCIS Processing of FOIA Requests
USCIS FOIA processing is consolidated at the National Records Center (NRC). Prior to 2005, FOIA requests were decentralized, and could be handled on the local level by USCIS. In FY 2006, USCIS had a backlog of more than 88,000 FOIA requests. Jill Eggleston reported in the teleconference that in FY 2010 the backlog was down to 8,000 cases.
There are currently 120 NRC employees, with 30 more new employees authorized for hiring in 2011. Ms. Eggleston informed teleconference participants that current USCIS processing times for FOIA requests vary according to the type of request and that USCIS sorts FOIA requests into three separate tracks. Ms Eggleston also noted the processing time for each type of request.
* Track One FOIA Requests, or simple document requests, are those that request only a specific document, such as a copy of a particular immigration petition.
Processing time: 43 working days
* Track Two FOIA Requests are those where an entire file is requested.
Processing time: 34 working days
* Track Three FOIA Requests are those requests where the individual has a pending hearing scheduled before the Immigration Court.
Processing time: 59 working days
In the FOIA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009, the processing times published for USCIS show an average processing time of 215 business days for Track One FOIA requests, 344 business days for Track Two FOIA requests, and an average of 60 business days for Track Three FOIA Requests.
USCIS FOIA Process
As stated on the teleconference, FOIA requests to USCIS can be made with a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) or by written request submitted by mail to USCIS NRC, P.O. Box 648010, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-8010; or by fax to 816-350-5785. Most FOIA requests are free, but if fees exceed $25, the requester will be notified in advance of such a charge. Ms. Eggleston stated that a web-based request system would be established in the near future and will be rolled out in two phases: Phase One will be for media requests, while Phase Two will be for all other requests. Currently, the status of a FOIA request can be checked with an NRC receipt number through the FOIA link on USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov).
Appeals of USCIS FOIA denials or material withheld under FOIA exemptions may be filed to USCIS FOIA Appeals, 150 Space Center Loop, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-2139.
As noted in the teleconference, more information on filing FOIA requests with other Department of Homeland Security components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is available at DHS | Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act (http://www.dhs.gov/foia).
Expedite Criteria
By regulation, there are narrow expedite criteria that may allow a requester priority to receive a FOIA response. Expedites will only be granted for cases that present an imminent threat to life or safety requiring the FOIA response, or where there is an urgency to inform the public.
Overall, FOIA requests are handled on a first-come, first-served basis, which is only differentiated based on the three tracks described above, or the occasional expedite case.
Teleconference Questions
In response to questions from callers on the teleconference, Ms. Eggleston stated that certain information is required with a FOIA request to verify identity including name, address, date of birth, and place of birth. Without this information, a FOIA request is incomplete. If information in a file is incorrect, a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) can be used to correct information under the Privacy Act. Another caller asked if USCIS could retrieve an envelope with a postmark from a particular file under FOIA. This documentation might be needed to support an application for adjustment of status under . Ms. Eggleston stated that there is a separate receipt file where payments to USCIS are recorded. If a receipt is requested, the FOIA request should specify that the NRC should search the alien's receipt file.
If records are requested on behalf of a child, Ms. Eggleston stated that names of parents will be requested, and USCIS may ask for proof of parent or guardian relationship before sending information to that party.
Ms. Eggleston said that sometimes in denying FOIA requests for persons with final removal orders, USCIS invokes the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine' under Meddah v. Reno, No. 98-1444, (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 1998). She also said that her office may refer such FOIA requests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE
dresses free christian ackgrounds for
ujjvalkoul
01-25 04:01 PM
Wow!! Thats great guys...way to go!!
more...
makeup Animated Backgrounds for
aillarramendi
10-01 02:23 PM
I'm understanding now and thanks but I still didn't understand why a guy from EB3 ROW with PD March 2004 is receiving now I-485 approval (GC) if the last VB shows 01 AUG, 2002?
Thanks.
Thanks.
girlfriend ackgrounds for business cards
seeking_GC
09-23 04:14 AM
Hi boreal,
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
hairstyles Backgrounds for letters
pappu
03-05 10:56 AM
I am an IT consultant
What is the probable Approval date for this application?
My details:
EB2-labor 09/2006.
I-140 SRC078XXXXXXX(Texas)
Reciept: 02/27/2007
Notice: 07/31/2007
Priority:09/01/2006
section: Member of professional w/adv degree or of exceptional ability . Sec203(b)(2)
I-485:# SRC08-008-53-XXX(Texas:2008:eight day from 09/01/2008)
Recieved:08/14/2007
Notice :09/11/2007
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of imigrant petition.
Finger Printing:12/20/2007
Could you please add that in your profile as well
What is the probable Approval date for this application?
My details:
EB2-labor 09/2006.
I-140 SRC078XXXXXXX(Texas)
Reciept: 02/27/2007
Notice: 07/31/2007
Priority:09/01/2006
section: Member of professional w/adv degree or of exceptional ability . Sec203(b)(2)
I-485:# SRC08-008-53-XXX(Texas:2008:eight day from 09/01/2008)
Recieved:08/14/2007
Notice :09/11/2007
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of imigrant petition.
Finger Printing:12/20/2007
Could you please add that in your profile as well
noone2day78
02-15 01:17 PM
Hmm... I agree with : "Once you strart using EAD your H1 will be terminated."
what I dont agree with is : "If you want to switch to H1 again your need to apply for fresh H1 in the new quota."
You can reapply for H1-B but you are NOT subject to H1-B cap / quota.
It should not be subject to the annual cap unless you have been out of the U.S. for at least one year since you were last in H-1B status.
hth!
ohh is this really true? can u specify a source for this ?
what I dont agree with is : "If you want to switch to H1 again your need to apply for fresh H1 in the new quota."
You can reapply for H1-B but you are NOT subject to H1-B cap / quota.
It should not be subject to the annual cap unless you have been out of the U.S. for at least one year since you were last in H-1B status.
hth!
ohh is this really true? can u specify a source for this ?
yabadaba
06-25 02:32 PM
ask the lawyer what he was thinking
No comments:
Post a Comment