number30
05-08 06:27 PM
What if you directly send a personal check?
MAy be good for large amounts. But for small amount too much fees is associated. I sent some checks of $100 to a charity , almost Rs 500 was deducted as fees for every Check. It was Syndicate Bank where they encashed the check.
MAy be good for large amounts. But for small amount too much fees is associated. I sent some checks of $100 to a charity , almost Rs 500 was deducted as fees for every Check. It was Syndicate Bank where they encashed the check.
wallpaper Tagged as lebron james,
senthil
02-15 09:50 AM
why not - no one does things for free. if you talk to attorney, you know how much $$ you have to pay. most time ive seen members on form answer clean and quick based on their experiance, which is in-valuable.
$1 is just pennnies. not bad to start with at all
$1 is just pennnies. not bad to start with at all
salvador marley
06-07 06:40 PM
wow i got two in - great prizes too.
:)
:)
2011 lebron-james-dwyane-wade-miami
cbpds
10-14 06:52 PM
Not sure how its good news, it is good for USCIS as they will get money for pre-registration while we do not get the EAD till the priority date becomes current.
It will not compel them to make dates current when they need money by allowing folks to file 485
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
It will not compel them to make dates current when they need money by allowing folks to file 485
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
more...
thepaew
09-24 10:45 AM
It is not possible to switch to F-1 if one has filed I-140. If you wish to pursue an MBA you basically have 3 choices:
1. US-based part-time program
2. If you are married, you can attend on H-4, with risks of being out of status if your spouse loses employment and the difficulty in obtaining US-based placements.
3. Look outside the US - INSEAD, IMD, MBA-HSG, LBS, ISB, etc. etc. There are very good options outside the US too.
Good Luck!
-N
1. US-based part-time program
2. If you are married, you can attend on H-4, with risks of being out of status if your spouse loses employment and the difficulty in obtaining US-based placements.
3. Look outside the US - INSEAD, IMD, MBA-HSG, LBS, ISB, etc. etc. There are very good options outside the US too.
Good Luck!
-N
nozerd
01-15 11:02 AM
If you are not that serious about Canada and are cool with being rejected dont take the test. If they were ok with passing you anyways they wouldnt have specifically asked you to take it.
IELTS is more widely accepted and has more centers in the US than the other test.
IELTS is more widely accepted and has more centers in the US than the other test.
more...
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.
2010 2011 lebron james heat
vinabath
05-15 01:04 PM
What a coincidence.....
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
more money to spend for I-140 and PP
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
more money to spend for I-140 and PP
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
more...
sury
11-06 09:24 AM
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
hair Miami Heat forward LeBron
anilsal
07-16 07:21 AM
i guess I am going to be in trouble in case I have to get a new PCC. I will try and get a new one when I reach India. Also update to my status is that chennai consulate has sent a letter to my local address in India about the interview appointment date.
The reason consulates in the US take 50 days for PCC is that they send the request to regional Passport Office in India who take like 45 days. So you may probably apply at PP office in India and get the clearance.
The reason consulates in the US take 50 days for PCC is that they send the request to regional Passport Office in India who take like 45 days. So you may probably apply at PP office in India and get the clearance.
more...
gc_on_demand
01-20 11:08 AM
CIR was impossible all along. It was delusional to think such a political hot potato can pass.
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
hot hair lebron james heat
Lord Rahl
03-04 10:00 PM
ames, post your picture in your own thread with a title for it under the Just Draw Yourself sectoin of the forums HERE (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=152).
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
more...
house lebron-james-miami-heat.jpg
jamesbond007
12-03 12:48 PM
Thanks for your advice guys, I have found a university which allows people to go on CPT from 1st semester itself. They charge $3000 for this arrangement (along with $2400 for 6 credit hours) and their MBA/MS program is weekend only classes. I expect to convert to F1 and work with my present employer on CPT upon the my H1B expiration in Sept' 09 (I don't want to recapture the 2 months in Indian vacation). Classes start in 1st week of Oct 2009. The worst part is my course load will be really heavy as I have to continue with my regular M.B.A coursework in my present university.
Check to make sure the CPT from that university does not have any conditions on the type of employment you can take under it. And also check the number of hours you can work under that CPT - fulltime/parttime?.
Check to make sure the CPT from that university does not have any conditions on the type of employment you can take under it. And also check the number of hours you can work under that CPT - fulltime/parttime?.
tattoo lebron james heat pictures.
newuser
05-12 10:12 PM
I am in for it. I am ready to put 2K if members are going to come forward
more...
pictures Lebron-james-miami-heat-jersey
chanduv23
03-03 12:14 PM
chanduv
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
Check out my blog on IV also check some threads that ran in past.
Remember - RFE for employment does not necessarily get triggered because of 140 revoke - it can be triggered even if you change address (see some threads)
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
Check out my blog on IV also check some threads that ran in past.
Remember - RFE for employment does not necessarily get triggered because of 140 revoke - it can be triggered even if you change address (see some threads)
dresses Lebron James free agent
sbeyyala
07-14 01:37 PM
I have a similar issue, Applied for a EAD that is expiring in Sep08 on June10th08, Got EAD approved from NSC on July7th and saw that the new EAD Card is valid from 01/01/08 to 01/01/09, so in effect its extended by 4 months.
Planning to call NSC to see what I can do,
Planning to call NSC to see what I can do,
more...
makeup lebron james heat 6. lebron
sabr
09-18 03:37 PM
If I work little less than 40 hrs will it be considered as part time? Can I use EAD at that time ?
girlfriend house LeBron James Heat lebron
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
hairstyles LeBron James
crazyghoda
06-08 07:29 PM
Not a bad idea. No need to bring up all the talk (from other threads) about interim GC or whatever. Just a 10 year validity on EADs and APs for retrogressed categories. If nothing, it'll atleast highlight the situation (and save me $340 + $305 = $645 every year)
too farfetched? should we pursue it? a 10 year wait at the least given the current quota restrictions..
too farfetched? should we pursue it? a 10 year wait at the least given the current quota restrictions..
Pagal
09-27 12:04 PM
Hello,
I think you are fine to do day trading on any visa type.
Just because you conduct multiple transactions per day does not legally imply that you are paying any less attention to your regular job.
If you are called for an AOS interview, a curious IO may ask how did you manage both, but you can always show that you did your job well by providing copies of your performance evaluations and/or letters from your supervisors/HR.
In summary, good luck w day trading! Do donate part of the profits to IV... :)
I think you are fine to do day trading on any visa type.
Just because you conduct multiple transactions per day does not legally imply that you are paying any less attention to your regular job.
If you are called for an AOS interview, a curious IO may ask how did you manage both, but you can always show that you did your job well by providing copies of your performance evaluations and/or letters from your supervisors/HR.
In summary, good luck w day trading! Do donate part of the profits to IV... :)
TheCanadian
11-26 12:58 AM
Yours is sweet by the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment