abhi_022001
01-10 06:08 PM
I lost my job in november end ...I was working with one of the top most company in IT consulting in US(EDS/HP/CSC) like....in SAP field .Company was loosing pojects and bench was getting bigger...
I was lucky enough though to get another job within a month in somewhat stable industry in oil & gas..
I was lucky enough though to get another job within a month in somewhat stable industry in oil & gas..
wallpaper Brooke Burke Hot Photos
bluekayal
02-24 01:49 PM
Hi,your post gives me small hope but can you please tell whether i am eligible or not.?
I am on a H-4 visa and my mother is the H-1 holder.we recently applied for i-140 and got the recipt for it.can i apply for FAFSA..?
If you've used an AP to re-enter the country ..based on I-485 filing, you can apply for FAFSA.
I am on a H-4 visa and my mother is the H-1 holder.we recently applied for i-140 and got the recipt for it.can i apply for FAFSA..?
If you've used an AP to re-enter the country ..based on I-485 filing, you can apply for FAFSA.
Blog Feeds
02-01 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)
2011 Brooke Burke
fide_champ
08-04 07:05 PM
Hi , Thanks again for the reply.
Related to Point 3 ,reason why im trying to this is to avoid all of us leaving country due to non approval of my COS, I dont have luxury to stay on L1 beyond next 2 months..
well, i realistically see two options here:
1. Get your family here ASAP and apply COS for all. If your COS gets approved, most likely theirs will get approved as well. You can do yours in premium and theirs by regular. As long as they get the receipt within 2 months, they'll be in status.
2. You can apply COS for yourself in premium and ask your family to stamp H4. If they get stuck in 221g, then it could be months before they get here. That's the downside.
Your L1 visa stays if your COS gets rejected, so you don't have to leave immediately.
Related to Point 3 ,reason why im trying to this is to avoid all of us leaving country due to non approval of my COS, I dont have luxury to stay on L1 beyond next 2 months..
well, i realistically see two options here:
1. Get your family here ASAP and apply COS for all. If your COS gets approved, most likely theirs will get approved as well. You can do yours in premium and theirs by regular. As long as they get the receipt within 2 months, they'll be in status.
2. You can apply COS for yourself in premium and ask your family to stamp H4. If they get stuck in 221g, then it could be months before they get here. That's the downside.
Your L1 visa stays if your COS gets rejected, so you don't have to leave immediately.
more...
naresh515
09-24 05:52 PM
Below is one of the .....link that can scare any one who is planning on visiting mexico....
Given 221g administrative processing in Matamoros, Mexico - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4724019812&m=3631066902)
I have changed my plan from getting h1b renewal stamping from matamoros to INDIA..
Given 221g administrative processing in Matamoros, Mexico - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4724019812&m=3631066902)
I have changed my plan from getting h1b renewal stamping from matamoros to INDIA..
shana04
08-15 04:55 AM
No I havent got my GC yet.
Good, so many of IVans are missing you buddy. ;)
Good, so many of IVans are missing you buddy. ;)
more...
h1-b forever
04-22 08:33 AM
small correction:
president is not a member of the congress and neither are the judges (separation of powers)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
president is not a member of the congress and neither are the judges (separation of powers)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
2010 Brooke Burke Poses for Playboy
helmet
01-15 08:37 PM
I think they will send the results with in a week time. you have to mail them the original results certificate with in 120days.
more...
letstalklc
10-07 10:37 AM
Is there anything specific that can be done after 15 months? I was justing waiting for someone to look at my case at DOL. Can you please shed some more light on this?
I tried to find information on the web, but I could not find anything anything particular to a case pending for 15 months or more.
Please share your understanding with us all. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are in the similar situation.
Thanks.
If your case is not filed by Fragomen and if it's passed 15 months period you can ask your lawyer to enquire about your case status, the DOL informed in the stake holders meeting to AILA no's that they are welcomed enquires to the cases that has been passed 15 months time period...for more information you can see in this web site under labor audit's endless delay thread (this is in the section of labor processing)
Final conclusion - if your case is pending for more than 15 months and not filed by fragomen you can ask your employer to enquire about it.
I tried to find information on the web, but I could not find anything anything particular to a case pending for 15 months or more.
Please share your understanding with us all. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are in the similar situation.
Thanks.
If your case is not filed by Fragomen and if it's passed 15 months period you can ask your lawyer to enquire about your case status, the DOL informed in the stake holders meeting to AILA no's that they are welcomed enquires to the cases that has been passed 15 months time period...for more information you can see in this web site under labor audit's endless delay thread (this is in the section of labor processing)
Final conclusion - if your case is pending for more than 15 months and not filed by fragomen you can ask your employer to enquire about it.
hair Brooke Burke
Dj.Stigma
06-02 02:02 AM
My vote goes to Soul. Though all 3 wwws were very ugly and very user-unfriendly, Soul's 'beauty' (referring to his entry) was the one where i had to wait for the 'content' the longest time and it was very, very painful :hangover:
G... i mean Terrible job everyone ;-)
Peace
G... i mean Terrible job everyone ;-)
Peace
more...
gcdreamer05
08-05 05:11 PM
Guys n Girls,
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
hot Brooke Burke Hollywood Star
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...
house rooke burke nfs
ivuser
02-15 11:34 AM
Let us Provide Service and generate more revenue.
Revenue generation through multiple means is a very good idea.
Information Service
I would like to make most of the form thread details be accessible to members who had paid at least $100 or enrolled for recursive $20/month. We should make the thread heading very attractive and make it accessible to public. Core members should review all the thread headings, I think they are already doing it now. I can volunteer to this activity. I do have 8 years of experience in studying US immigration law, though I am not a lawyer, with my experience I can be of some guidance.
Advertisement
Provide advertisement (Ad), like we see top, right side and bottom page Ad in hotmail, yahoo etc. Apart from the flash, images Ads, we should also do Google text Ads. Flash Ad could be charged based on the space, number of page hits. Google pays 25 cents per click on the hyperlink for the text Ad. I had managed a project, which implemented the feature. I am sure we have lot of technical experts and get this implemented, very well.
Corporate Sponsorship
If a corporation sponsors money then most probably there will be some tax advantage. I do know IV�s tax code. Consulting companies could pay IV from our company account.
Physicians
We can identify all our physician members and provide help for members and their parents in need. In turn the members who had taken help could contribute to IV�s good cause, in terms of funds, taking part in activities, etc. Hi the concept is very simple, if you had gone to a doctor, you will end up spending 2 hr waiting to see the doctor and then pay 150 to talk to them for 15 min. We will help you and intern you help us, or may be help yourself if you are a person going through the GC process. I can take initiative for this task, my wife is a physician and I know 20 other doctors who are in the GC process.
Disclaimer
Our IV admin should make standard disclaimers like, the information provided may have error, and the members should always consult lawyers for accurate information, the thread details are intended to be an approximate guidance.
This should be part of our terms and conditions, while we register new members. It should also be part of the page footer, the text should be in red color.
Action Item
I would like to set up a conference today 9:10 PM (EST), Thursday Feb 15th 2007. Please reply to this tread if you have more ideas. Please do mention if any of you are interested in participating in today�s phone conference. I will also arrange for another conference during this weekend if necessary.
I will call IV�s core members to discuss this activity and based on their recommendations I will confirm the conference and the details like phoning number and access code.
My fellow members please note that we need to be more active and innovative to achieve our target (GC). I appreciate all our members for taking part in IV.
Revenue generation through multiple means is a very good idea.
Information Service
I would like to make most of the form thread details be accessible to members who had paid at least $100 or enrolled for recursive $20/month. We should make the thread heading very attractive and make it accessible to public. Core members should review all the thread headings, I think they are already doing it now. I can volunteer to this activity. I do have 8 years of experience in studying US immigration law, though I am not a lawyer, with my experience I can be of some guidance.
Advertisement
Provide advertisement (Ad), like we see top, right side and bottom page Ad in hotmail, yahoo etc. Apart from the flash, images Ads, we should also do Google text Ads. Flash Ad could be charged based on the space, number of page hits. Google pays 25 cents per click on the hyperlink for the text Ad. I had managed a project, which implemented the feature. I am sure we have lot of technical experts and get this implemented, very well.
Corporate Sponsorship
If a corporation sponsors money then most probably there will be some tax advantage. I do know IV�s tax code. Consulting companies could pay IV from our company account.
Physicians
We can identify all our physician members and provide help for members and their parents in need. In turn the members who had taken help could contribute to IV�s good cause, in terms of funds, taking part in activities, etc. Hi the concept is very simple, if you had gone to a doctor, you will end up spending 2 hr waiting to see the doctor and then pay 150 to talk to them for 15 min. We will help you and intern you help us, or may be help yourself if you are a person going through the GC process. I can take initiative for this task, my wife is a physician and I know 20 other doctors who are in the GC process.
Disclaimer
Our IV admin should make standard disclaimers like, the information provided may have error, and the members should always consult lawyers for accurate information, the thread details are intended to be an approximate guidance.
This should be part of our terms and conditions, while we register new members. It should also be part of the page footer, the text should be in red color.
Action Item
I would like to set up a conference today 9:10 PM (EST), Thursday Feb 15th 2007. Please reply to this tread if you have more ideas. Please do mention if any of you are interested in participating in today�s phone conference. I will also arrange for another conference during this weekend if necessary.
I will call IV�s core members to discuss this activity and based on their recommendations I will confirm the conference and the details like phoning number and access code.
My fellow members please note that we need to be more active and innovative to achieve our target (GC). I appreciate all our members for taking part in IV.
tattoo Brooke Burke Romantic, Curly
hebron
08-16 02:50 PM
Hi Hebron,
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
You have a valid H1 with the new employer (client), so there should be nothing wrong working with the client.
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
You have a valid H1 with the new employer (client), so there should be nothing wrong working with the client.
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
more...
pictures Brooke Burke - Stuff Magazine
Blog Feeds
02-01 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)
dresses Brooke Burke backstage at the
jediknight
11-09 11:18 AM
Filled out. Will post this in other forums and email lists
more...
makeup Brooke Burke Wallpaper
meridiani.planum
03-06 02:28 PM
My Company is switching me to EAD and will cancel my H1. Saying that H1 is more expensive to maintain... They'll pay for my EAD renewal also... Anyway don't have a choice here unless I switch...
My question is that my lawyer told that Iam allowed to work up to 120 days post EAD expiry if EAD renewal is delayed... They'll file 90 days before current EAD expiry..
Does this sound okay.. Anyone heard anywhere that its allowed to work upto 120 days of EAD expiry pending EAD renewal??
you cannot work past EAD expiry. Does not matter if renewal is delayed. You need to stop working.
You can file upto 120 days in advance of current EAD expiry. 90 days seems a little tight looking at demand (tons of July filers) but will probably be ok. Dont cut it any closer than that.
My question is that my lawyer told that Iam allowed to work up to 120 days post EAD expiry if EAD renewal is delayed... They'll file 90 days before current EAD expiry..
Does this sound okay.. Anyone heard anywhere that its allowed to work upto 120 days of EAD expiry pending EAD renewal??
you cannot work past EAD expiry. Does not matter if renewal is delayed. You need to stop working.
You can file upto 120 days in advance of current EAD expiry. 90 days seems a little tight looking at demand (tons of July filers) but will probably be ok. Dont cut it any closer than that.
girlfriend Brooke Burke
BECsufferer
12-07 11:02 AM
Hi!
I have a question about wether a person with US Masters can qualify for EB1 category? Please comment.
I know generally people with such qualification fall into EB2 category. However, does years of expereience and say Patents qualify you to be considered as EB1?
Thanks for reading this thread and commenting.
I have a question about wether a person with US Masters can qualify for EB1 category? Please comment.
I know generally people with such qualification fall into EB2 category. However, does years of expereience and say Patents qualify you to be considered as EB1?
Thanks for reading this thread and commenting.
hairstyles Brooke Burke Bikini Image
rockstart
03-11 09:43 AM
Isnt Labor & I 140 property of the employer and labor can be transferred to some one else (not allowed now but was in past) the employee comes into picture only at the 485 stage and that is when the intent should be looked into. Its a pretty complicated question so lawyer is the best person to answer.
sundevil
03-11 05:48 PM
It does not become any less fraudulent if the employer participates in it. You are applying for a Green Card sponsored by an employer saying that employer needs you, without ever intending to work for them once you get it. Don't you see it. Its fraud.
This is a very subjective question of intent? If the employer has no problem and willing to support the petition and a job offer when the RFE arrives, how will the UCSIS ever determine intent.
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
This is a very subjective question of intent? If the employer has no problem and willing to support the petition and a job offer when the RFE arrives, how will the UCSIS ever determine intent.
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
Daisy
10-26 10:57 AM
Thanks Arihant
No comments:
Post a Comment