Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
wallpaper Demi-Lovato-Hot. NPV Ref:
adobe howm
09-23 11:50 AM
09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
Thanks for the effort. this indeed reaches where it suppose to be - helping someone with similar need. appreciated. not sure how to give you my green though.
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
Thanks for the effort. this indeed reaches where it suppose to be - helping someone with similar need. appreciated. not sure how to give you my green though.
vivekm1309
07-12 12:17 AM
Our lawyer Company has decided to file the AOS application in July
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
2011 demi lovato hot. Filed Under: Demi Lovato, Hot
tinuverma
03-17 02:08 PM
I guess I will ask you the same...is that true both for H1 transfer and EAD?
Thanks
As far as I know there is no limitation on the size of the company. As long as they are a stable and sound company you are good to go.
Thanks
As far as I know there is no limitation on the size of the company. As long as they are a stable and sound company you are good to go.
more...
thomachan72
04-12 08:28 AM
Hi guys,
I am a new bie but in deep trouble,
My case is like this
Have valid I-797 - till - Jan 16,2009 ( now expired right )
Valid I-94 - till -Jan 24 , 2009 ( now expired right )
Applied for extension in --- Sept 2008( 5months before I-94 expiry date)
Applied for premium in -- Feb 26, 2009
RFE -- Mar 2, 2009
Denied -- Mar 31,2009
Trying to transfer my H1- to another product company under premium.
I heard if you appeal the denial, you cant file the transfer, so i dont want to appeal,
Please correct me if this is incorrect ???? gurus please help me,
As I know I dont have any status but denial letter says appeal with in 33 days.
Consulted PRODUCT COMPANY ATTERNEY , said you can stay up till 30 days.
Is it possible to transfer with out appeal or MTR for the current denial ?
Please advice, as I am already running out of time....
thanks
jvs
very sorry to hear about that. why dont you go for an apeal? what was the reason for denial? what was the RFE for? was this your first extension? give us more details to analyze the situation.
I am a new bie but in deep trouble,
My case is like this
Have valid I-797 - till - Jan 16,2009 ( now expired right )
Valid I-94 - till -Jan 24 , 2009 ( now expired right )
Applied for extension in --- Sept 2008( 5months before I-94 expiry date)
Applied for premium in -- Feb 26, 2009
RFE -- Mar 2, 2009
Denied -- Mar 31,2009
Trying to transfer my H1- to another product company under premium.
I heard if you appeal the denial, you cant file the transfer, so i dont want to appeal,
Please correct me if this is incorrect ???? gurus please help me,
As I know I dont have any status but denial letter says appeal with in 33 days.
Consulted PRODUCT COMPANY ATTERNEY , said you can stay up till 30 days.
Is it possible to transfer with out appeal or MTR for the current denial ?
Please advice, as I am already running out of time....
thanks
jvs
very sorry to hear about that. why dont you go for an apeal? what was the reason for denial? what was the RFE for? was this your first extension? give us more details to analyze the situation.
mheggade
08-01 01:07 PM
Here is my prediction.
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Is it just your imagination or did you base this on any source.
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Is it just your imagination or did you base this on any source.
more...
eb3_2004
11-19 12:28 PM
Check now...It is updated
2010 In 2008, Demi Lovato starred
arbhaat
10-08 08:06 PM
I think this was my lawyer's contention too when she described to me about being in EAD as well as H-4. As long as my husband is in H-1, I would be in H-4 contrary to most discussions that take place here. I think USCIS, has no clear explanation for this situation!!
Advance parole is similar to this, you have H1 but you become parolee. I don't understand. Any other comments from other applicants?
i think once you use EAD to work, your H4 status has to expire. as someone said above, H4 by definition is a dependent visa and does not allow independent earnings (no job, no business nothing)
as per your next question, usually a person with valid H1B would not use AP to re-enter. Only a person on EAD would use AP to re-enter. Now what if one applies, gets and uses AP to re-enter even after having valid H1B (and no EAD), I don't know what the resultant status is?
Advance parole is similar to this, you have H1 but you become parolee. I don't understand. Any other comments from other applicants?
i think once you use EAD to work, your H4 status has to expire. as someone said above, H4 by definition is a dependent visa and does not allow independent earnings (no job, no business nothing)
as per your next question, usually a person with valid H1B would not use AP to re-enter. Only a person on EAD would use AP to re-enter. Now what if one applies, gets and uses AP to re-enter even after having valid H1B (and no EAD), I don't know what the resultant status is?
more...
americandesi
06-06 07:08 PM
The contract that you signed is valid only if UBS and your vendor have a work order between them stating that you will be offering your services to UBS from such and such date. As you failed the background check, I assume that they never executed such a work order.
Your vendor is asking for trouble. They're supposed to pay you the prevailing wage from the day you started working with them until the termination of employment. Moreover termination of employment is applicable only if they notify USCIS to cancel your H1. In such a case they're supposed to provide a return flight ticket for you and your dependents.
Your employer obviously doesn't know the rules governing H1 and is trying to play scare tactics with you. All you need to do now is to find another employer and transfer your H1. Then file a complaint with DOL to recover the backwages for the period you were on bench.
Your vendor is asking for trouble. They're supposed to pay you the prevailing wage from the day you started working with them until the termination of employment. Moreover termination of employment is applicable only if they notify USCIS to cancel your H1. In such a case they're supposed to provide a return flight ticket for you and your dependents.
Your employer obviously doesn't know the rules governing H1 and is trying to play scare tactics with you. All you need to do now is to find another employer and transfer your H1. Then file a complaint with DOL to recover the backwages for the period you were on bench.
hair Demi Lovato
leo2606
09-24 03:50 PM
Any thoughts
more...
rockets12345
10-30 12:36 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong i.e. I can continue working as I have already applied for my H1 extension and whatever the H1 extension response is based on that if it is approved I can stay on H1 else if extension denied for some reason then at that point I can move to EAD and file a new I-9 Form with my employer and continue my work.
Thanks
Thanks
hot Twitter lovers Demi Lovato and
hebbar77
03-15 02:14 PM
First thing is when u have higher salary , u got nothing to worry.
Next job tittle/description have to be similar in words not only in nature(becos USCIS officers are not tichnical folks, they just match words). Also it has to be in similar job code. This code is in the ETA* form filed during the labor phase by ur current employer.
But you can do AC21 with EAD or H1. H1 is safer than EAD.
Next job tittle/description have to be similar in words not only in nature(becos USCIS officers are not tichnical folks, they just match words). Also it has to be in similar job code. This code is in the ETA* form filed during the labor phase by ur current employer.
But you can do AC21 with EAD or H1. H1 is safer than EAD.
more...
house Demi+lovato+hot+wallpaper
sujan_vatrapu
01-22 02:30 PM
Why should we fight about every issue that is posted? Cant we debate it like mature people? This tendency to fight (and get emotional) over irrelevant issues will not help us any better.
Most of us in this immigration thread are academically oriented. And I believe that this can be attributed to the way in which we were molded in our early life. Most of our parents would stress academic excellence over athletic and artistic abilities. They made all our choices all the way to college and maybe beyond. They would always trump every argument with the statement, "We know what is best for you."
That said, I think the comparison between western and eastern parenting in US is not completely fair. The section of Indians & Chinese immigrants in US are educated and were probably at the top of their classes in their respective countries. They excelled academically and it helped them (us) immigrate and be part of the successful strata of this country. We cannot compare these immigrants with the Western population as a whole. We should compare eastern and western parenting techniques among parents with similar backgrounds.
Successful American families produce successful kids. This is also true for families of all races. Each set of parents have their own method.
Getting greencard is not everything. We have lives beyond the greencard. We have (or will have) kids and have a responsibility towards raising them to give them the best possible skills (academic, artistic & social) to thrive in their lives. And a mature discussion in parenting methods is useful.
I urge everyone of you to make your arguments and highlight relative merits & de-merits. You may also argue whether this discussion has merit or not. But no name calling.
Nag
i totally agree, we should always listen to people with different opinions which makes us more rational, i also agree with your point that we should not compare NRIs with general population here, parenting in every culture has its pros and cons, we should look at each of it and take out good,
Most of us in this immigration thread are academically oriented. And I believe that this can be attributed to the way in which we were molded in our early life. Most of our parents would stress academic excellence over athletic and artistic abilities. They made all our choices all the way to college and maybe beyond. They would always trump every argument with the statement, "We know what is best for you."
That said, I think the comparison between western and eastern parenting in US is not completely fair. The section of Indians & Chinese immigrants in US are educated and were probably at the top of their classes in their respective countries. They excelled academically and it helped them (us) immigrate and be part of the successful strata of this country. We cannot compare these immigrants with the Western population as a whole. We should compare eastern and western parenting techniques among parents with similar backgrounds.
Successful American families produce successful kids. This is also true for families of all races. Each set of parents have their own method.
Getting greencard is not everything. We have lives beyond the greencard. We have (or will have) kids and have a responsibility towards raising them to give them the best possible skills (academic, artistic & social) to thrive in their lives. And a mature discussion in parenting methods is useful.
I urge everyone of you to make your arguments and highlight relative merits & de-merits. You may also argue whether this discussion has merit or not. But no name calling.
Nag
i totally agree, we should always listen to people with different opinions which makes us more rational, i also agree with your point that we should not compare NRIs with general population here, parenting in every culture has its pros and cons, we should look at each of it and take out good,
tattoo girlfriend demi lovato 2011
GCisLottery
01-25 04:47 PM
Please do not quote T(oilet paper) o(f) I(ndia)
Seriously.
Seriously.
more...
pictures demi lovato hot kiss
nareshg
10-05 01:11 AM
Hi,
what is your online status after RFE. Does online status change to "RFE" from "Received and pending" once we get RFE. My employer dont tell me much about my I140 status or RFE but I have receipt number. I can check online
Thanks.
When I spoke to my lawyer 2 weeks back or so they said that it at times takes 1 month to get the RFE by mail....sounds strange I got my EAD a week or so after the status changes online....to approved..
I have to ask them again as to what is happening, have not heard back from them....
my current status as of 10/4/2007 says...
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
On August 29, 2007, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence and/or information in this case. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the evidence and/or information requested. This case will be held in suspense until we either receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once you submit the information and/or evidence requested, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something further from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service.
Hoping that as it is 140 it is something to do with the company and the lawyers will take care of it, hopefully it is not to do something with my case individually....
what is your online status after RFE. Does online status change to "RFE" from "Received and pending" once we get RFE. My employer dont tell me much about my I140 status or RFE but I have receipt number. I can check online
Thanks.
When I spoke to my lawyer 2 weeks back or so they said that it at times takes 1 month to get the RFE by mail....sounds strange I got my EAD a week or so after the status changes online....to approved..
I have to ask them again as to what is happening, have not heard back from them....
my current status as of 10/4/2007 says...
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
On August 29, 2007, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence and/or information in this case. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the evidence and/or information requested. This case will be held in suspense until we either receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once you submit the information and/or evidence requested, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something further from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service.
Hoping that as it is 140 it is something to do with the company and the lawyers will take care of it, hopefully it is not to do something with my case individually....
dresses Demi Lovato Latest Photos
ryan
02-03 05:33 PM
Hi Ryan,
Do you know anyone have done that? Like you personally or anyone you know? Have they got I-140? I read that its possible to get PERM Labor done under EB-2, but USCIS gives real hard time at I-140 stage.
Appreciate your help!
Thank you
The lawyers had the Ozzie degree, as well as the US CPA evaluated via an accredited foreign degree evaluator. This was back in the summer of �06. Again, invest a few extra $$ and hire a good lawyer. They can best explain the process / prerequisites to you.
Do you know anyone have done that? Like you personally or anyone you know? Have they got I-140? I read that its possible to get PERM Labor done under EB-2, but USCIS gives real hard time at I-140 stage.
Appreciate your help!
Thank you
The lawyers had the Ozzie degree, as well as the US CPA evaluated via an accredited foreign degree evaluator. This was back in the summer of �06. Again, invest a few extra $$ and hire a good lawyer. They can best explain the process / prerequisites to you.
more...
makeup news Demi+lovato+hot+2011
gc_on_demand
10-14 05:56 PM
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
Teddy
Is there any source on any site which gives idea that they are thinking of it. Since we have close to 800 members who joined for filling 485 when date is not current we can ask IV core to make this campaign officially and push for this one. Even we know 800 are not a good strength still it may help if govt is willing
Teddy
Is there any source on any site which gives idea that they are thinking of it. Since we have close to 800 members who joined for filling 485 when date is not current we can ask IV core to make this campaign officially and push for this one. Even we know 800 are not a good strength still it may help if govt is willing
girlfriend Fat,demi lovato hot apr
jediknight
11-09 11:18 AM
Filled out. Will post this in other forums and email lists
hairstyles demi lovato hot 2011. hot hits
eb3_nepa
07-29 05:42 PM
As far as I know we HAVE NO STAND on the issue.
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
Roger Binny
07-25 04:42 PM
No idea what to say, yes they have all rights but doesn't this never ends?
Or Are these cases rare ?
Some one entered into US legally in 2001, slogged(ing) 8 or more years for GC...so 2009..then 5 more years for citizen ship so 2014....with this news it looks like they need to keep up the paper work and employer contacts for 12 years, as well the family need to realize that their stay in US is temporary ???
Oh my god too much of reality.
Or Are these cases rare ?
Some one entered into US legally in 2001, slogged(ing) 8 or more years for GC...so 2009..then 5 more years for citizen ship so 2014....with this news it looks like they need to keep up the paper work and employer contacts for 12 years, as well the family need to realize that their stay in US is temporary ???
Oh my god too much of reality.
pappu
02-09 07:40 AM
E-mail Matthai Chakko Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com
No comments:
Post a Comment