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 mensajes de amor para celular.
juz4forums
07-20 04:10 PM
I and my spouse both have green card. We have a kid who was born in INDIA. He has not visited USA till now. The kid is about 2 years.
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
eagerr2i
07-16 11:37 PM
W-2 is from the employer, that you got paid. Tax return is form 1040 you filed with IRS
2011 de amor. de amor emo. de amor
lskreddy
12-05 12:04 AM
http://minx.cc/?post=279217
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
I think that about sums it up the best way possible. Gosh, I wish a chernobyl would happen in the areas that mofos come from and wipe them out.
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
I think that about sums it up the best way possible. Gosh, I wish a chernobyl would happen in the areas that mofos come from and wipe them out.
more...
leo2606
09-24 03:50 PM
Any thoughts
santb1975
02-14 12:22 AM
We really need it
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
more...
shivaz90
07-16 10:40 PM
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
2010 mensajes de amor para celular.
vaayu
06-28 09:16 AM
We've used this service last two times and it was great. His name is Mark.
more...
sh2005
08-13 11:24 AM
From my notice the processing date is meaningless at TSC because the dates are mostly the processing windows. For example, I140 was Jan 13 in July notice, which was 6 months behind. If you take a look on AP and EAD, they were just 3 months behind.
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It makes predicting when our applicatios will be done a little harder :)
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It makes predicting when our applicatios will be done a little harder :)
hair mensajes de amor para celular
gchopes
08-04 04:04 PM
my2cents - Agreed and Understood. But what if you are not on H1/H4 and just on EAD/AP aka AOS status. In that case you cannot mail the second AP and return on that. You need to return on the first AP.
Not True
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
Not True
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
more...
seahawks
06-27 01:18 AM
yes was filed by lawyer, but in his defense, I had to review all the paper work, I did not do a good job either.
hot mensajes de amor para celular.
a1b2c3
06-16 12:27 AM
I think your best bet would be that your parents apply for visa alone. I believe this will improve their chances of getting visa and once they get the visa then your siblings can apply. Good luck!
I think so too. I think its good to ask the immigration officer why the visa is being denied.
I think its best your parents apply by themselves and leave your brothers out.
When they see so many family members travelling all together for an extended period of time, they smell something. They feel your entire family wants to be out of Indonesia and will apply for asylum.
Another thing to do is to ask for a short duration visa like a month or so. It might help.
And forget abt the elderly granddad. No one will buy all that. Make sure the reasons for coming back are rock solid.
Sorry to hear about this and wish you the best luck next time. Don't give up hope and ask your folks to schedule another appt without delay.
I think so too. I think its good to ask the immigration officer why the visa is being denied.
I think its best your parents apply by themselves and leave your brothers out.
When they see so many family members travelling all together for an extended period of time, they smell something. They feel your entire family wants to be out of Indonesia and will apply for asylum.
Another thing to do is to ask for a short duration visa like a month or so. It might help.
And forget abt the elderly granddad. No one will buy all that. Make sure the reasons for coming back are rock solid.
Sorry to hear about this and wish you the best luck next time. Don't give up hope and ask your folks to schedule another appt without delay.
more...
house mensajes de amor para celular.
dreamworld
01-25 04:43 PM
I live and take bart from fremont. let us know time and day or days of this event. I will plan to stop by or stop for hours to help IV friends.
tattoo 2011 mensajes de amor a
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
more...
pictures mensajes de amor para hombres.
REEF�
06-08 07:57 PM
tsk tsk, voting for yourself :bad:Like I was gonna win this is a huge poll I might as well have done it :lol:.
I don't want to win this because I don't deserve it. I even said I want the vector guy to win, them thangs are sweeter than rubber bands :azn:.
I don't want to win this because I don't deserve it. I even said I want the vector guy to win, them thangs are sweeter than rubber bands :azn:.
dresses Enviar mensajes dia del padre
coopheal
07-26 11:39 AM
I have added my experience on wiki. Please add the banks you used here..
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Sending_Money_to_India
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Sending_Money_to_India
more...
makeup mensajes de amor para mi
desi3933
02-09 05:05 PM
what is NCR Region???
National Capital Region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Capital_Territory_of_Delhi)
National Capital Region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Capital_Territory_of_Delhi)
girlfriend mensajes de amor para celular.
santb1975
02-16 12:27 AM
^^
hairstyles mensajes de amor para celular.
glosrfc
11-26 11:20 AM
@TheCanadian, glos is a cunning one. :look:
Unfortunately, that's not the case. If it were, I might've tried to make my buttons look more like...well, buttons. :suppose_maybe:
But it was fun making them and I've had some ideas for new themes!
Unfortunately, that's not the case. If it were, I might've tried to make my buttons look more like...well, buttons. :suppose_maybe:
But it was fun making them and I've had some ideas for new themes!
glus
08-01 10:18 AM
My wife's current H4 is valid till Nov. She got her H1 also approved from Oct'2007. She checked the status this morning only on USCIS.
I'm applying for I-485 and adding her as spouse. Should I file for her advance parole and put her status as H4 in it? What happens to to her H1 approval, if advanced parole gets approved also. Will she loose her H1 status?
any ideas??
Put her status as H4. She is in H4 until October 2007 (assuming you asked for change of status and change of status was also approved.) No, she will not loose her H1, as H1 is a "dual intent" visa.
I'm applying for I-485 and adding her as spouse. Should I file for her advance parole and put her status as H4 in it? What happens to to her H1 approval, if advanced parole gets approved also. Will she loose her H1 status?
any ideas??
Put her status as H4. She is in H4 until October 2007 (assuming you asked for change of status and change of status was also approved.) No, she will not loose her H1, as H1 is a "dual intent" visa.
signin241
04-04 02:00 PM
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
No comments:
Post a Comment