onemorecame
07-25 11:45 AM
Here is the calculation I came up with USCIS processing of our I-485 applications.
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
Good Calculation
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
Good Calculation
saileshdude
06-25 12:55 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
logiclife
04-15 06:54 PM
I have been in this situation but my work location changed more than 100miles within the same state. My attorney asked me to start another labor.
1. If you think that you will move back one the 485 is adjucated, then you dont have to worry. OTherwise, you have file a new labor. Atleast you are safe since your 140 is approved. You can port your PD.
2. If it is within few miles then it should not affect. Still you have to check with your attorney. Few miles sometimes puts you in different couty or state or even in different country. So the term "Few Miles" is relative one and it is better to check with attorney.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
1. If you think that you will move back one the 485 is adjucated, then you dont have to worry. OTherwise, you have file a new labor. Atleast you are safe since your 140 is approved. You can port your PD.
2. If it is within few miles then it should not affect. Still you have to check with your attorney. Few miles sometimes puts you in different couty or state or even in different country. So the term "Few Miles" is relative one and it is better to check with attorney.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
TeddyKoochu
05-19 01:59 PM
How and how they can prove he is not going to do any work at the location, the client will not be charged for that?
Get a letter from your USA office on their letter head that you will be in USA to do just business discussion, and stay will be very short.
Show them that you have strong tie-up's back in India (family/house/properties/relatives etc).
Tell them you have to continue your job in India after the business discussions in USA.
Also show visa officer that you will not get paid in USA (no pay roll); business expenses are covered by company.
just one cent info....
I believe that @GCFrenzy your suggestions are good. For any business visa it is definitely a basic requirement to have a letter stating all the information that you are mentioning. I had also worked for a large Indian company and my first visit to US was on B1 this was immediately after 9/11 and the client gave a very similar letter in those days however you did not go to the consulate for stamping. Also if the company can state the duration of the trip and substantiate with a return ticket the chances of approval will be much higher the duration should be less than 5-6 weeks. Issuing visa is always in good faith and at the discretion of the VO. @Nathan I think it would not be correct to generalize even though what you are saying is correct because many genuine people are affected due to the collateral a damage. Think of this many people when they applied for F1 also stated in good faith that they will return to their home countries after their studies but most of them are still here and many of them on immigration forums :).
Get a letter from your USA office on their letter head that you will be in USA to do just business discussion, and stay will be very short.
Show them that you have strong tie-up's back in India (family/house/properties/relatives etc).
Tell them you have to continue your job in India after the business discussions in USA.
Also show visa officer that you will not get paid in USA (no pay roll); business expenses are covered by company.
just one cent info....
I believe that @GCFrenzy your suggestions are good. For any business visa it is definitely a basic requirement to have a letter stating all the information that you are mentioning. I had also worked for a large Indian company and my first visit to US was on B1 this was immediately after 9/11 and the client gave a very similar letter in those days however you did not go to the consulate for stamping. Also if the company can state the duration of the trip and substantiate with a return ticket the chances of approval will be much higher the duration should be less than 5-6 weeks. Issuing visa is always in good faith and at the discretion of the VO. @Nathan I think it would not be correct to generalize even though what you are saying is correct because many genuine people are affected due to the collateral a damage. Think of this many people when they applied for F1 also stated in good faith that they will return to their home countries after their studies but most of them are still here and many of them on immigration forums :).
more...
neelu
01-02 02:34 PM
Please anyone.........help me.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
gc_dream07
06-10 12:53 PM
I support this move. If it takes 10 years to get the GC after filing I-485, then we should get 10-year EAD/AP. Why should we pay every year throusands of dollar.
more...
DudefromBombay
09-23 01:20 PM
I am eagerly waiting for the Nov Election results. Can't wait to see Democtas losing House and Senate and can't wait to see the Back of "BARRACK"
H1B-GC
07-15 02:14 PM
All,
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
Congrats Bud! Can you Tell us when did you apply for the consular Process and ur I-485 date ???
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
Congrats Bud! Can you Tell us when did you apply for the consular Process and ur I-485 date ???
more...
psaxena
06-10 05:39 PM
wow thats a news.. as your alias is "vivid" write something "different"(vividh) which we dun know.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
gst76
02-18 05:21 PM
Going to India is definitely better. Especially since it is going to be your first H1b stamping.
If you register for a Canada stamping, a message pops-up saying that if it is your 1st H1b stamping, then go to home country.
As long as your docs are in order, you shouldn't have any problem in India.
Good luck!
If you register for a Canada stamping, a message pops-up saying that if it is your 1st H1b stamping, then go to home country.
As long as your docs are in order, you shouldn't have any problem in India.
Good luck!
more...
hpandey
01-21 12:26 PM
1. It has nothing to do with immigration (unless you factor that "chinese mother" is an immigrant), which is why this thread is on interesting topics.
2 and 3. I had not even heard of the article until today and told the same to my doc. She brought up the topic because I am Indian.
4. Personally, after having read it, there are a few things I agree with the author and there are many I don't.
BTW, I had not read the CNN story either. Many of the things that I did not like in Amy's article are addressed in the CNN story!
Here's more critics who " love " her style of parenting ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/books/20book.html?_r=1
who the hell leaves their 3 year old out in the cold .
And btw how much she is Chinese is up for debate since she grew up here and can't even speak Mandarin... ( from the article )
2 and 3. I had not even heard of the article until today and told the same to my doc. She brought up the topic because I am Indian.
4. Personally, after having read it, there are a few things I agree with the author and there are many I don't.
BTW, I had not read the CNN story either. Many of the things that I did not like in Amy's article are addressed in the CNN story!
Here's more critics who " love " her style of parenting ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/books/20book.html?_r=1
who the hell leaves their 3 year old out in the cold .
And btw how much she is Chinese is up for debate since she grew up here and can't even speak Mandarin... ( from the article )
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-11 03:05 PM
Have you done this ...or do you know some text that say this /....can have a 3 yr extension based on the pervious 140 ...
That is from 2007 to 2010 ....Thanks
3 year H1 extension from date of application (for example: June 2007 to June 2010).
If you move to Company B, you need to restart GC (i.e. new LC and new 140). One can port PD from old 140 to new I-140, however there is a risk involved if the previous I-140 is revoked or canceled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
That is from 2007 to 2010 ....Thanks
3 year H1 extension from date of application (for example: June 2007 to June 2010).
If you move to Company B, you need to restart GC (i.e. new LC and new 140). One can port PD from old 140 to new I-140, however there is a risk involved if the previous I-140 is revoked or canceled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
more...
vxg
09-08 03:01 PM
Got the cards in the mail. My online case status says the application is still pending.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Thanks for starting this. I am in same boat, i called TSC and the IO told me my case was approved on 9/4/09 and i have an LUD on 9/4/09 however online status says case pending. I asked that to the IO and she says she does not know about the online status but in there system it is approved. I did that after i received a call from an IO from local field office ( i went for Infopass last week at local office) informing that my and my wife's cases were approved on 9/4/09.
I am hoping to get the cards as have to travel to India next week. The IO in Texas advised me to get the Passport stamped.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Thanks for starting this. I am in same boat, i called TSC and the IO told me my case was approved on 9/4/09 and i have an LUD on 9/4/09 however online status says case pending. I asked that to the IO and she says she does not know about the online status but in there system it is approved. I did that after i received a call from an IO from local field office ( i went for Infopass last week at local office) informing that my and my wife's cases were approved on 9/4/09.
I am hoping to get the cards as have to travel to India next week. The IO in Texas advised me to get the Passport stamped.
bigboy007
12-10 02:56 PM
Please consider contributing IV...IV need your help to resolve our immigration problems.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Oh definately no worries i am going to contribute + i have requested 20 of my friends to join IV and participate the funding drive. I am comitted to IV
any more ideas on my question please reg. 140 porting i am not sure .. and if we dont have to intimate USCIS. Help me out
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Oh definately no worries i am going to contribute + i have requested 20 of my friends to join IV and participate the funding drive. I am comitted to IV
any more ideas on my question please reg. 140 porting i am not sure .. and if we dont have to intimate USCIS. Help me out
more...
cox
October 23rd, 2005, 04:48 PM
A couple more from the job finish today. I liked the backdrop - looks like ricepaper, which really pleased the Japanese-born client. This was taken vertically. I hung the wreath with a thread and then cloned it out :) I wasn't really happy with the backdrop lighting in the second one. Guess I need to invest in some lights. I used natural light from the right and a reflector card on the left of the subject.
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/wreath_blue_102305_JP8X5706.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/red_rose_tea_setting_102305_JP8X5748.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/wreath_blue_102305_JP8X5706.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/red_rose_tea_setting_102305_JP8X5748.jpg
luckylavs
09-25 02:47 PM
Because there is little certainity about the Green card many people hesitating to buy houses. There is good chance that the housing market will definitly improve if the Green card waiting period decreases.
more...
theperm
05-07 07:51 PM
The Employer won`t be touching the I-140 or any other related GC apps.About the time frame for getting same or similar job...I am seriously keeping my fingers crossed!!!!
Thanks for all the detailed inputs alterego !!!
Thanks for all the detailed inputs alterego !!!
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)
pani_6
02-09 09:48 AM
Yes this option is open...the sitiuation is getting ridicilous by the day..lets wait for couple of months so see if SKIL OR CIR take some direction..meanwhile nothin prevents us from preparing
grounds for a law suit!!
grounds for a law suit!!
bigsky
10-18 11:06 AM
Thanks a lot for your advice Pappu and I don't think it has anything to do with my employer, there were four other Labor Certification�s applied during the same time period and three of them already certified and mine was the only one which got screwed. I will consult with the lawyer about my situation.
Thanks for your input nycgal369.
Thanks for your input nycgal369.
go_guy123
05-18 07:44 PM
Unfortunately lot of fresh PhDs who apply as EB-1 even after getting a faculty position are usually denied on grounds of lacking enough professional experience. It is not easy to be qualified as a n EB-1 even if you have a PhD. So, most of the PhD's I know are in the EB-2 queue.
Perhaps so. Because most ones I know (faculty) are in EB1. Actually
a lot of denials can be appealed and they can get EB1. But often faculty
arent aggresive about it and are fine with EB2. Patience is a virtue all PhDs
have (live on 17K annual salary for 5 to 6 years followed by 1 year as post doc on around 30K) and you guys complain of 50K salary.
However not many Phd are awarded each year and the impact wont be much. STEM Masters/PhD along with using of unused previous quota will
make a significant impact.
However based on past experience I doubt the Hispanic caucus will
allow this to pass. H1B/EB reform is the sweetener for the amnesty bill
they want to pass. Allowing this to pass leaves the most politically toxic waste to be left behind for CIR.
However we should always try our best. Atleast they are taking of
EB reform now.
Perhaps so. Because most ones I know (faculty) are in EB1. Actually
a lot of denials can be appealed and they can get EB1. But often faculty
arent aggresive about it and are fine with EB2. Patience is a virtue all PhDs
have (live on 17K annual salary for 5 to 6 years followed by 1 year as post doc on around 30K) and you guys complain of 50K salary.
However not many Phd are awarded each year and the impact wont be much. STEM Masters/PhD along with using of unused previous quota will
make a significant impact.
However based on past experience I doubt the Hispanic caucus will
allow this to pass. H1B/EB reform is the sweetener for the amnesty bill
they want to pass. Allowing this to pass leaves the most politically toxic waste to be left behind for CIR.
However we should always try our best. Atleast they are taking of
EB reform now.
No comments:
Post a Comment