BPforGC
10-15 12:28 PM
1. It goes to the mail room and stamped on the date it was received.
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
wallpaper E34 1995 BMW 540i
krupa
04-08 04:39 PM
I believe the intention of not moving too much beyond jul 06 , may be to make some spill over benfit happen to EB3 also. If they open the gate for EB2 now, lots of 485 application may come in and there may not be spill over to EB3. :)
Krupa
Krupa
akred
06-08 12:10 AM
But the letter doesn't seem to address the direct behaviour of the companies in question. Seems like a bunch of broader level issues were tackled - while true, it doesn't address H1B abuse in any way. Wasn't that the point?
I'm sure that is not addressed in this letter because from their POV there is no abuse.
The Senators are convieniently overlooking the fact that they need to get deadbeat departments like the DOL and USCIS to shape up. And where is their concern for the American worker when they make these departments process massive loads of illegals without providing additional funding?
I'm sure that is not addressed in this letter because from their POV there is no abuse.
The Senators are convieniently overlooking the fact that they need to get deadbeat departments like the DOL and USCIS to shape up. And where is their concern for the American worker when they make these departments process massive loads of illegals without providing additional funding?
2011 This Bmw E34 was a seidl
GC_ASP
08-14 02:50 PM
$ 745 is the total fee for I-485, I-131, I-765 & biometrics. Many people sent single check of $745 per application. It is weird to see that kind of rejection.
more...
neelu
01-02 02:34 PM
Please anyone.........help me.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
gxr
10-01 03:29 PM
Anyone with Oct 06 or earlier RD still waiting for I-140 approval?
more...
sirinme
12-02 02:38 PM
Not sure if I can make it in person, but I will contribute $100. This is on top of my monthly contribution.
2010 Photos de mw 520i E34
Nil
11-10 02:54 PM
^^^^
more...
abd
03-05 10:18 AM
My I-140 got approved without RFE EB2 on 03/02/07.
RD 07/27/06
LUD 08/16/06
Approval Date 03/02/07.
Now joining endless wait for 485 filing.
RD 07/27/06
LUD 08/16/06
Approval Date 03/02/07.
Now joining endless wait for 485 filing.
hair 5mall5nail5#39;s E34 5 series BMW
BPforGC
03-05 11:52 PM
My wife got RFE before leaving for India. Unless you know what the RFE is about, do not leave the country under any circumstances. RFE dates cannot be extended without compelling reasons. If you do not answer RFE, your petition has the chance of being considered "abandoned". Call the service center, not customer service, and find out about the content of RFE and tell them that you updated the address but you still did not get it.
They have access to read what is in the RFE. For my wife, the IO at NSC read the RFE content and told that it is about birth certificate. So, call and find out what is in there and take care of it first. Under any circumstances do not leave the country without answering the RFE otherwise you may not be able to come back, because it may lead to your petition considered abandoned. This risk is greatest if you use AP.
If your wife is traveling on H4, then she can enter using that VISA as long as if you maintain valid H1B. But if you are on EAD and she is traveling on AP, do not take risk. Do not listen to multiple people because you get half-cooked answers. I went through that situation and I am telling you, get to the bottom of the RFE, fast.
They have access to read what is in the RFE. For my wife, the IO at NSC read the RFE content and told that it is about birth certificate. So, call and find out what is in there and take care of it first. Under any circumstances do not leave the country without answering the RFE otherwise you may not be able to come back, because it may lead to your petition considered abandoned. This risk is greatest if you use AP.
If your wife is traveling on H4, then she can enter using that VISA as long as if you maintain valid H1B. But if you are on EAD and she is traveling on AP, do not take risk. Do not listen to multiple people because you get half-cooked answers. I went through that situation and I am telling you, get to the bottom of the RFE, fast.
more...
ksahmed
11-15 04:31 PM
Service Center NSC
I-131
Primary Applicant:
10/22: Soft LUD
11/6: Document Mailed
11/7: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/15: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/22)
Secondary Applicant
10/12: Soft LUD
10/31: Document Mailed
11/1: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/6: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/12)
I-131
Primary Applicant:
10/22: Soft LUD
11/6: Document Mailed
11/7: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/15: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/22)
Secondary Applicant
10/12: Soft LUD
10/31: Document Mailed
11/1: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/6: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/12)
hot Bmw 520i E34.
Anogar
03-05 02:12 AM
I think I misread the OP about moving from the flash IDE to flex builder although I strongly prefer both FD and FDT to flex builder..
and no Jeff, it wasn't directed at you although I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about either :P
You didn't misread it, he said:
I think it's natural to switch from Flash Studio to Flex Builder in the some point of time.
Never mind...
And I also disagree. Flex has some strong points, but ultimately there isn't much you can't accomplish with Flex that you couldn't have done with Flash + Flash Develop, or FDT, or something like that. Obviously no one uses the Flash IDE to code once they reach a certain point, but that doesn't mean the only (or best) option is to move to Flex Builder. I find Flex Builder to be sort of cumbersome, and for working with artists, which I'm always doing, I much prefer using the Flash IDE.
and no Jeff, it wasn't directed at you although I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about either :P
You didn't misread it, he said:
I think it's natural to switch from Flash Studio to Flex Builder in the some point of time.
Never mind...
And I also disagree. Flex has some strong points, but ultimately there isn't much you can't accomplish with Flex that you couldn't have done with Flash + Flash Develop, or FDT, or something like that. Obviously no one uses the Flash IDE to code once they reach a certain point, but that doesn't mean the only (or best) option is to move to Flex Builder. I find Flex Builder to be sort of cumbersome, and for working with artists, which I'm always doing, I much prefer using the Flash IDE.
more...
house BMW 520i E34
texcan
01-17 09:13 AM
There is no difference in filing taxes when you were on OPT vs H1B (by this I mean there are no different forms). When you were on OPT, Social Security and Medicare should not have been with held from your paycheck. If it was, then you need to ask for refund of those taxes from the employer who with held that tax. As far as Cincinnati and Chicago are concerned, nothing special to do for Federal Income tax. However, for state income tax, you will have to file income tax for both Ohio and Illinois as part year resident.
Having said the above, it is your choice to go to a tax consultant or do it on your own or to use Turbo Tax. If you want 100% peace of mind, go to a good accountant. If you want to save money and you think you can handle things on your own, go through all the instructions on all the forms and file it on your own. If you want a little bit of both - you can use Turbo Tax or any other tax software to file your taxes. If you are single, don't own a home and you think yours is a straight forward case (no deductions for work related expenses, medical bills, etc) - you should pretty much be able to do it on your own.
very well said about taxes for OPT/H1.
you should check on state taxes for chicago and cinci....
I have used HR block, and their services are pretty good.
Last year a friend of mine user HR block, he was in situation where he worked in a different state (OPT/H1) for few moths and then he moved to another state. Long story short, he got a letter from state he was living in earlier regarding state tax discrepency.
Surpringly H&R block came thru and did not charge for extra services, rather H&R paid $60 in late fee charges, citing reason that it was their mistake in the first place.
HTH
Having said the above, it is your choice to go to a tax consultant or do it on your own or to use Turbo Tax. If you want 100% peace of mind, go to a good accountant. If you want to save money and you think you can handle things on your own, go through all the instructions on all the forms and file it on your own. If you want a little bit of both - you can use Turbo Tax or any other tax software to file your taxes. If you are single, don't own a home and you think yours is a straight forward case (no deductions for work related expenses, medical bills, etc) - you should pretty much be able to do it on your own.
very well said about taxes for OPT/H1.
you should check on state taxes for chicago and cinci....
I have used HR block, and their services are pretty good.
Last year a friend of mine user HR block, he was in situation where he worked in a different state (OPT/H1) for few moths and then he moved to another state. Long story short, he got a letter from state he was living in earlier regarding state tax discrepency.
Surpringly H&R block came thru and did not charge for extra services, rather H&R paid $60 in late fee charges, citing reason that it was their mistake in the first place.
HTH
tattoo Bmw 520i E34. BMW 520i e34
menimmigration
07-19 09:48 AM
Hello IV Members,
I have a question about my Wife status(H4) here in United States, My I-485 (EB3/PD DEC 2003) got approved on July 16'th and my lawyer says they have applied my wife I-485 application on July 17'th after USCIS released rescinded July 2'nd bulletin.
My I-485 was applied before our marriage,Can anybody please share some thoughts on my wife status(H4) at present??.
Any help on getting more information will be greatly appreciated..My lawyer says she should be fine.please share your experiences.
Thanks.
I have a question about my Wife status(H4) here in United States, My I-485 (EB3/PD DEC 2003) got approved on July 16'th and my lawyer says they have applied my wife I-485 application on July 17'th after USCIS released rescinded July 2'nd bulletin.
My I-485 was applied before our marriage,Can anybody please share some thoughts on my wife status(H4) at present??.
Any help on getting more information will be greatly appreciated..My lawyer says she should be fine.please share your experiences.
Thanks.
more...
pictures BMW 5 series E34 gallery
desitechie
07-14 08:43 PM
One should be good enough.
dresses Bmw 5 series e34 18″ alloy
makemygc
07-18 12:12 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?
I edited my previous message as I do agree I sounded negative but that's not what I mean.
Some of my suggestions:-
1. Creating a petition and getting it signed by more than 10000 victims stuck in BEC and sending it to relevant people in congress and USCIS.
2. Doing a rally in NY, Sanjose etc.
3. Working closely with USCIS and IV core and see how we can improve the situation.
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?
I edited my previous message as I do agree I sounded negative but that's not what I mean.
Some of my suggestions:-
1. Creating a petition and getting it signed by more than 10000 victims stuck in BEC and sending it to relevant people in congress and USCIS.
2. Doing a rally in NY, Sanjose etc.
3. Working closely with USCIS and IV core and see how we can improve the situation.
more...
makeup 1992 Bmw 520i med M50 motor
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)
girlfriend Have you folks ever seen a BMW
GC20??
08-24 04:47 PM
any updates on status of background processing for your 485 ?
No updates yet. Though I know its useless I am taking an infopass tomorrow and will have IO open a service request.
No updates yet. Though I know its useless I am taking an infopass tomorrow and will have IO open a service request.
hairstyles BMW 5-Reihe E34 (1988-1995)
linuxra
07-22 11:56 AM
I submitted RFE with all necessary documents from my side everything is ok...
i got an email that my docs recieved and rfe docs recieved...
thats it nothing recieved after that and my pd is current next month
i got an email that my docs recieved and rfe docs recieved...
thats it nothing recieved after that and my pd is current next month
saileshdude
09-04 11:37 AM
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
chi_shark
07-24 03:49 PM
so, we are not out of the woods yet? its just that they (USCIS) can now say that they have gone through x number of apps... i wish they clarified this really well...
but thanks for answering the really important question!
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
but thanks for answering the really important question!
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
No comments:
Post a Comment