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 The machine: the new BMW 128i
royus77
07-17 10:59 PM
The link is not working
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/UpdateDirectFiling062107.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/UpdateDirectFiling062107.pdf
bsbawa10
08-21 09:46 AM
I broke my politeness today.USCIS inconsistency broke the limits for me.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
2011 BMW#39;s all-new 1-series offers
allegator
03-18 08:45 AM
I need advice..My project ended yesterday and I have another opportunity to work on EAD. I know my current employer will not be able to find a job for me as has been the case earlier and he will remove me from payroll soon. Can I start working with new employer and do not resign from my current employer?
I need help on this as I do not want to terminate my job from my side.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks,
I need help on this as I do not want to terminate my job from my side.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks,
more...
nrk
10-06 06:07 PM
Done
ItsLife
05-06 09:17 PM
Why are u putting unrelated stuff here. You can always consult a lawyer for lawsuit
if u feel. Ofcourse nothing is free. U will need to pay a lawyer for that.
We can post IPL matches here, we can post people working on two jobs and all the advise for every thing and not for this poor guy who seeks advise.
This is a form for immigration issues and not only to get your Green card. Incase you forget that.
This is a very sad state then some seniors think they can talk trash or anything to other members. This needs to stop asap.
if u feel. Ofcourse nothing is free. U will need to pay a lawyer for that.
We can post IPL matches here, we can post people working on two jobs and all the advise for every thing and not for this poor guy who seeks advise.
This is a form for immigration issues and not only to get your Green card. Incase you forget that.
This is a very sad state then some seniors think they can talk trash or anything to other members. This needs to stop asap.
more...
mmanurker
04-13 01:54 PM
In my company 3 of my collegues are doing exactly this. All are representing US company in the offshore development centre. there payrolls are run here in US, they are in India and all there expenses are paid by US company. They pay taxes here in US show some friends address and there 485 is also in progress
I am on H1b and also travel a lot at times upto 4 months. (same LCA issue should be true for me also) but never had an issue....
But I hear you, so better check with an lawyer and have a complete picture, but as I say this is completely doable.
Well all I can say is that you all are lucky and hope that the luck does not run out down the road because in US not knowing law is not an excuse and as long as DOL or USCIS does not find this out you are fine. Giving friends address and filing taxes using friends address and filing LCA to show that you will be working from a location in US and running payroll from that state but in reality working outside USA, to me if DOL/USCIS finds out then they might treat this as LCA voilations, fraud and misrepresentation and both you and your employer could land into trouble.
I remember few years back some of the H1B employees as well as employer(owner of the company and few others) were handcuffed and arrested for LCA voilations...
here is the old link from murthy.com:
MurthyDotCom : INS Raid re: LCA Violations Against H1B Employer (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDraid.html)
here is another one:
MurthyDotCom : Arrests of H1B Employers Increase (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_h1arst.html)
LCA voilations also result in H1B's revoked by USCIS. Its just that after Neufield Memo in Jan 2010 that the focus shifted towards employer-employee relationship but prior to Jan 2010, most of the talk on immigration forums were about the LCA and LCA voilations.
About you travelling upto 4 months, I am not sure how your LCA is drafted and filed. but here is some info that If an employee works for more than 30 consecutive days or 60 aggregate days within a 12 month period at a location not listed on the LCA, the employer must file a new LCA documenting that change. OR employer can list multiple locations on the LCA filed the very first time itself.
and about your taxes, you will be considered as resident alien if you lived and worked more than 180 days in the same state/place.
Again I could be wrong here but this is my understanding considering the kind of cases that I hear abt LCA voilations and subsequent petition denials..
Bottom line seek legal advice from attorneys.
I am on H1b and also travel a lot at times upto 4 months. (same LCA issue should be true for me also) but never had an issue....
But I hear you, so better check with an lawyer and have a complete picture, but as I say this is completely doable.
Well all I can say is that you all are lucky and hope that the luck does not run out down the road because in US not knowing law is not an excuse and as long as DOL or USCIS does not find this out you are fine. Giving friends address and filing taxes using friends address and filing LCA to show that you will be working from a location in US and running payroll from that state but in reality working outside USA, to me if DOL/USCIS finds out then they might treat this as LCA voilations, fraud and misrepresentation and both you and your employer could land into trouble.
I remember few years back some of the H1B employees as well as employer(owner of the company and few others) were handcuffed and arrested for LCA voilations...
here is the old link from murthy.com:
MurthyDotCom : INS Raid re: LCA Violations Against H1B Employer (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDraid.html)
here is another one:
MurthyDotCom : Arrests of H1B Employers Increase (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_h1arst.html)
LCA voilations also result in H1B's revoked by USCIS. Its just that after Neufield Memo in Jan 2010 that the focus shifted towards employer-employee relationship but prior to Jan 2010, most of the talk on immigration forums were about the LCA and LCA voilations.
About you travelling upto 4 months, I am not sure how your LCA is drafted and filed. but here is some info that If an employee works for more than 30 consecutive days or 60 aggregate days within a 12 month period at a location not listed on the LCA, the employer must file a new LCA documenting that change. OR employer can list multiple locations on the LCA filed the very first time itself.
and about your taxes, you will be considered as resident alien if you lived and worked more than 180 days in the same state/place.
Again I could be wrong here but this is my understanding considering the kind of cases that I hear abt LCA voilations and subsequent petition denials..
Bottom line seek legal advice from attorneys.
2010 BMW 128i Coupe (US) 2007
walking_dude
01-30 11:46 AM
Thanks.
Also, E-mail them the IV Press Release too so that they understand that a whole community is impacted by the issue and there is an organization working on this issue. We are collecting stories from members and can provide to media if they contact us.
Anyone with licence rejection contact - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
We want to get our issues covered by media. Everyone please help us get our DL issues covered by them.
Thanks again for doing the right thing.
Emailed Detroit News and Free Press
and NPR(Miradio.org)
Also, E-mail them the IV Press Release too so that they understand that a whole community is impacted by the issue and there is an organization working on this issue. We are collecting stories from members and can provide to media if they contact us.
Anyone with licence rejection contact - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
We want to get our issues covered by media. Everyone please help us get our DL issues covered by them.
Thanks again for doing the right thing.
Emailed Detroit News and Free Press
and NPR(Miradio.org)
more...
marlon2006
06-14 10:52 AM
Hi RC, that's just a nickname.
My PD is April 2002. At Nebraska Service Center, I was able to file the I-485 on Feb 2005 and from there we've got our EAD.
Yes, I know what you are saying about the one income, three people. There are many things to consider. We prefer that my wife invests more time parenting my child, therefore she is working only part-time. Part-time jobs typically are low income. It is hard to put your 1-3 year old child in a daycare full-time, you know. It is not the same than when you take care of your child, at least in my opinion.
If you ever come to Seattle, just send me a private message and we can organize something here.
Hi Marlon,
BTW, did you change your username??
We are in New York but if we ever come to Seattle we would love to meet you guys. How did you manage to get EAD for your wife? Is it possible on H4 before I-485 is filed and pending?
We would love to have a baby next year and hope that my hubby will be able to work by then...otherwise it is one income and three of us :(
My PD is April 2002. At Nebraska Service Center, I was able to file the I-485 on Feb 2005 and from there we've got our EAD.
Yes, I know what you are saying about the one income, three people. There are many things to consider. We prefer that my wife invests more time parenting my child, therefore she is working only part-time. Part-time jobs typically are low income. It is hard to put your 1-3 year old child in a daycare full-time, you know. It is not the same than when you take care of your child, at least in my opinion.
If you ever come to Seattle, just send me a private message and we can organize something here.
Hi Marlon,
BTW, did you change your username??
We are in New York but if we ever come to Seattle we would love to meet you guys. How did you manage to get EAD for your wife? Is it possible on H4 before I-485 is filed and pending?
We would love to have a baby next year and hope that my hubby will be able to work by then...otherwise it is one income and three of us :(
hair BMW 128i - Short Take Road
keerthi
05-14 01:20 AM
Thank you very much for all the answers. I will post here when my employer takes a decision on the L1-A/L1-B/H1-B.
more...
jthomas
04-03 03:03 PM
Answer to question 1 :- You cannot work for two employers and take pay checks from both of them at the same time.(being in H1B)
Answer to question 2 :- When you are looking ot switch jobs and do a H1B transfer. The receipt would take around 2 weeks. Unless you get the receipt you cannot move to your new job. Your new employer has to file the petition. Some fees such as fraud fee $500/- and another $1500/- needs to be paid by your employer and not by you. Attoneys fee can by paid by anybody. Take any average immigration lawyer. my suggestion, Its worth paying to a good lawyer than taking any stress down the road.
I had consulted Visa pro and asked them couple of questions.Their consulancy fee was not expensive 4 years back.
3. I would wait till the H1B receipt. I don't know this answer.
Thanks
Hi there,
this is going to be a bit complicated but I'd appreciate any thoughts (or even just the advice to go get a/which lawyer for this one)....
Anyway, I am on an H1B right now but am going to switch jobs. My understanding is that once the new petition is filed I can start working for the second employer. I also would like to travel home during this time... So, here are my questions:
- Can you work for 2 employers at the same time while making the switch?
- How long does it take to file a petition (can i/my new employer do that myself)? If no, any advice on which lawyer to pick??? Anybody heard of Visa PRO?
- Is traveling to my home country OK while filing the petition or is it better to wait until I come back?
Thanks a lot!
Answer to question 2 :- When you are looking ot switch jobs and do a H1B transfer. The receipt would take around 2 weeks. Unless you get the receipt you cannot move to your new job. Your new employer has to file the petition. Some fees such as fraud fee $500/- and another $1500/- needs to be paid by your employer and not by you. Attoneys fee can by paid by anybody. Take any average immigration lawyer. my suggestion, Its worth paying to a good lawyer than taking any stress down the road.
I had consulted Visa pro and asked them couple of questions.Their consulancy fee was not expensive 4 years back.
3. I would wait till the H1B receipt. I don't know this answer.
Thanks
Hi there,
this is going to be a bit complicated but I'd appreciate any thoughts (or even just the advice to go get a/which lawyer for this one)....
Anyway, I am on an H1B right now but am going to switch jobs. My understanding is that once the new petition is filed I can start working for the second employer. I also would like to travel home during this time... So, here are my questions:
- Can you work for 2 employers at the same time while making the switch?
- How long does it take to file a petition (can i/my new employer do that myself)? If no, any advice on which lawyer to pick??? Anybody heard of Visa PRO?
- Is traveling to my home country OK while filing the petition or is it better to wait until I come back?
Thanks a lot!
hot 2010 mw 128i
pd_recapturing
04-04 03:25 PM
It also talks about 180 days rule. On the other hand, they are still sending denial notices to ppl whose 140 have been revoked by the employer.
"In most cases, the job offer in the Form I-140 must remain valid and available to the alien beneficiary until s/he obtains permanent resident status. In some limited circumstances, the law allows adjustment applicants to change employers without interrupting their eligibility for adjustment of status if the Form I-140 has been approved and the adjustment application has been pending for at least 180 days. USCIS recognizes that some workers may want to take advantage of this provision in the law and has increased its emphasis on processing the underlying employer petitions independent of the availability of a visa for the finalization of the adjustment of status application"
"In most cases, the job offer in the Form I-140 must remain valid and available to the alien beneficiary until s/he obtains permanent resident status. In some limited circumstances, the law allows adjustment applicants to change employers without interrupting their eligibility for adjustment of status if the Form I-140 has been approved and the adjustment application has been pending for at least 180 days. USCIS recognizes that some workers may want to take advantage of this provision in the law and has increased its emphasis on processing the underlying employer petitions independent of the availability of a visa for the finalization of the adjustment of status application"
more...
house Genuine BMW E82 1 Series
gc_aspirant_prasad
06-22 05:19 PM
Maybe he should volunteer for a pay cut of 30%. ONLY 30%. See, its trivial little teeny weeny 30%. Its nothing. You wont even feel it. How about that director?
:-) Super! May be you can get him to donate that 30% to IV instead of a pay cut.
:-) Super! May be you can get him to donate that 30% to IV instead of a pay cut.
tattoo 2008 BMW 128i and 135i Coupes,
pd_recapturing
08-22 04:16 PM
i sent u a PM. Please respond, if u can.
more...
pictures 2011 mw 128i
Ann Ruben
01-24 05:18 PM
Unfortunately, you are now out of status, and you are no longer authorized to work. Your employer can file a new petition for you, but because you are not in legal H1 status, you are not entitled to an extension of H1 status. The same is true if a new employer files an H1 petition for you. In either case, you will have to leave the US, get a new H1 visa stamped in your passport and re-enter the US using that visa in order to regain legal H1 status with authorization to work.
Premium processing isn't required, but if you want to get back to work as soon as possible it would be a good idea.
Ann
Premium processing isn't required, but if you want to get back to work as soon as possible it would be a good idea.
Ann
dresses the metallic blue BMW 128i
gc_on_demand
06-13 04:15 PM
Please call..
more...
makeup the 2008 BMW 128i will
trs80
03-10 03:46 PM
Hola USIRIT,
Thanks God! My perm was certified in 38 days.
Now we concurrent filed the USCIS forms.
Any update about your case?
Thanks God! My perm was certified in 38 days.
Now we concurrent filed the USCIS forms.
Any update about your case?
girlfriend mw atlanta The 2011 BMW 128i
bestia
08-03 08:15 PM
How tempting to change few words, add few dates, add few signatures, etc.. so the case looks better.. and then all of a sudden we hear messages like "Please help!!! my H1/LC/485 denied, back in 2004/2001/1997 we applied and did or didn't... please help!!!"
Be firm in your documents. If you don't like your documents, so be it. Send USCIS whatever you have, but the truth. In worst case scenario you will get RFEs, so what? Respond that this is what you have. Don't be creative, just use what you have. When I was in embassy I took only what was necessary and for any request to any other document I answered "I don't have it". Officer was pissed, but he approved - he had no reason to deny.
For the same reasons my lawyer insisted on EB3 for me, although I could go for EB2, but I knew, that I will have problems getting good letters from my previous employer.
Be firm in your documents. If you don't like your documents, so be it. Send USCIS whatever you have, but the truth. In worst case scenario you will get RFEs, so what? Respond that this is what you have. Don't be creative, just use what you have. When I was in embassy I took only what was necessary and for any request to any other document I answered "I don't have it". Officer was pissed, but he approved - he had no reason to deny.
For the same reasons my lawyer insisted on EB3 for me, although I could go for EB2, but I knew, that I will have problems getting good letters from my previous employer.
hairstyles Both the R32 and the 128i are
mk58581
06-06 05:47 PM
Hi
Thank u for the response
client is a finacial firm UBS.
Consulting firm is a direct vendor to the client and they transferred my H1 offerrin' me FT
This was the offer they pay $x on a daily basis -- W2
$65k -- they will mention in H1 and the remaining amount as per the W2 they will pay as bonus once every 3 months, tht's wht the agreetment is.
In the contract i was mentioning it says in case i fail to provide services to the vendor i am suposed to pay all the expenses they spent on me but the thing is client rejected the offer and there was no job @ all and they stopped floating my resume, askin' me to find a job myself.
This is the email i received.... but the thing is i never started at all bcoz of clients rejection based on credit report.
You and vendor entered into an agreement on or about March 8th 2010. According to the agreement you were to provide your services to Vendor by working on a project for our client UBS. Your services were to commence on March 22, 2010
To date, you have not fulfilled your obligations nder the agreement and thus youare required to pay Vendor the total sum of amounts for obtaining your work authorisation along with the cost of obtainig your background check.
If i am still not clear please let me knw
Thanks Again
Rgds
Kumar
Thank u for the response
client is a finacial firm UBS.
Consulting firm is a direct vendor to the client and they transferred my H1 offerrin' me FT
This was the offer they pay $x on a daily basis -- W2
$65k -- they will mention in H1 and the remaining amount as per the W2 they will pay as bonus once every 3 months, tht's wht the agreetment is.
In the contract i was mentioning it says in case i fail to provide services to the vendor i am suposed to pay all the expenses they spent on me but the thing is client rejected the offer and there was no job @ all and they stopped floating my resume, askin' me to find a job myself.
This is the email i received.... but the thing is i never started at all bcoz of clients rejection based on credit report.
You and vendor entered into an agreement on or about March 8th 2010. According to the agreement you were to provide your services to Vendor by working on a project for our client UBS. Your services were to commence on March 22, 2010
To date, you have not fulfilled your obligations nder the agreement and thus youare required to pay Vendor the total sum of amounts for obtaining your work authorisation along with the cost of obtainig your background check.
If i am still not clear please let me knw
Thanks Again
Rgds
Kumar
enver
06-13 03:27 PM
I got my LC two days ago apply 245i 05-26-01.On my LC it says B2 does this mean EB2 and whats my current status can I apply for 485i please advise me thakyou all.
kevinkris
07-21 06:11 PM
Open this thread in case if you get it..
Hi All,
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
Hi All,
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
No comments:
Post a Comment