justice4all
02-25 05:01 PM
My son got his FAFSA approved last year. I am on H1 and he is on H4. Your daughter either way on H4 or EAD qualifies for FAFSA. If you have questions, you can call FAFSA directly and they are very helpful.
Good Luck..
RV
Hi rameshvaid,
Are you sure, H4 qualifies for FAFSA. My wife is on H4 and she doesnt have SSN. I think if one has SSN, it doesnt matter whether they are in H1, H4, F1, EAD .. they can apply for FAFSA. Am I right?
thanks
Good Luck..
RV
Hi rameshvaid,
Are you sure, H4 qualifies for FAFSA. My wife is on H4 and she doesnt have SSN. I think if one has SSN, it doesnt matter whether they are in H1, H4, F1, EAD .. they can apply for FAFSA. Am I right?
thanks
wallpaper Retro Wallpaper. Download HD
lazycis
09-27 02:28 PM
Are you 100% sure about this.
I am
I am
reddymjm
05-01 10:01 AM
I had applied for labour in 2001 and also applied for i 140 and i 485 in 2002 .My h1 had exausted 7 years and since my i 94 was becoming in valid i was suggested by my lawyer to either stay here in usa without job and wait till i get the reciept notice and ead from uscis .Since financially my situation was very tight with a baby on the way .i decided to leave for india .Now i am here again since last 4 years .When i was in india i asked my lawyer if we can do any thing like counsalar processing etc (here in this case i had paid huge amount to the lawyer,i was paying for my gc process ).the lawyer told me that nothing can be done as he has withdrawn the i 140 .
Now after 2 years i came (or had to come back) to usa .my new employer started the ggc process this year .Since i needed full information of my previous process to complete the forms i contacted old lawyer .he send me the papers and i was so shocked to see that they did not withdraw any thing my i 140 was approved 4 months after i left and my fingerprinting is due since 2002 .I just wish my lawyer had told me the truth .we could have cp or come back .
it took a day for me to overcome the frustration of what had happened .
and now my major concern is 1.that with one case pending ,i dont know how it is going to effect the new case
2.is there any thing i can do to reopen my old case .
Take a paid consultation with Murthy.com if you can ask for Murthy only.
Good Luck.
Now after 2 years i came (or had to come back) to usa .my new employer started the ggc process this year .Since i needed full information of my previous process to complete the forms i contacted old lawyer .he send me the papers and i was so shocked to see that they did not withdraw any thing my i 140 was approved 4 months after i left and my fingerprinting is due since 2002 .I just wish my lawyer had told me the truth .we could have cp or come back .
it took a day for me to overcome the frustration of what had happened .
and now my major concern is 1.that with one case pending ,i dont know how it is going to effect the new case
2.is there any thing i can do to reopen my old case .
Take a paid consultation with Murthy.com if you can ask for Murthy only.
Good Luck.
2011 download Best HD wallpaper
.jpg "37k: funny+hd+wallpapers")
immi_seeker
09-13 12:46 PM
EB2 and EB3 at one point were in the same boat. Now that EB2 is advancing and is way ahead of EB3, the EB3 applicants are upset and angry. Their anger is very much justified. However, their anger should not be directed towards EB2 applicants.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
Agree. Problem has been with some folks saying the spill over distribution should be changed. But nobody is sure whether it will help EB3I because on a vertical roll over scenario, the spill over will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog too. So attitude seems to be, we are in this boat, so why not we make sure you guys will also be in same boat eventhough the change doesnt help us. And thats where the problem lies
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
Agree. Problem has been with some folks saying the spill over distribution should be changed. But nobody is sure whether it will help EB3I because on a vertical roll over scenario, the spill over will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog too. So attitude seems to be, we are in this boat, so why not we make sure you guys will also be in same boat eventhough the change doesnt help us. And thats where the problem lies
more...
lenbin
07-06 12:17 PM
@ gc wanna be
it works perfectly especially if ur company is on good standings as u mentioned in ur post.
PM me if u want info on similar cases, thats if u ddnt get CPO mail yet.
it works perfectly especially if ur company is on good standings as u mentioned in ur post.
PM me if u want info on similar cases, thats if u ddnt get CPO mail yet.
yawl
05-11 10:50 AM
It is just a TOOL to write to senators! No one force you to use their template, and you can and SHOULD write you letter!
more...
chi_shark
09-09 03:45 PM
This issue must have been beaten to death already... I do not think that you have to be a permanent resident or Citizen in USCIS terms for doing S-Corp. The requirement is stated in a negative fashion in the code. I mean that the code lists what cannot be instead of what should be. And I think it means that a s-corp shareholder cannot be a non-resident alien. Thats it. I am on EAD and I have an S-Corp (i dont do IT with that company). I have a full time IT job and run the company part time...
I would have liked to do LLC except that it is more expensive to set it up compared to corp. there are record keeping requirements on corp... but if you are a good CEO, you will keep records for any company... no matter what legal style of organization.
The only operational benefit of S-corp or llc is the pass through taxation... i.e. income is taxed only once... c-corp has to be taxed on profits... on the flip side, however, you may potentially have a company that does very little business in the first year and hence very little profits or taxes... you could give yourself a handsome (but reasonable) salary and hence declare loss or zero profits... there are ways..
finally, I recommend spending the extra time, money, effort to read a few books (like "Inc yourself") and subscribe to inc magazine, entrepreneur magazine to do all legal and accounting stuff yourself in the first 1 2 years... you will learn a lot! on the other hand if you are starting with large capital base, then you can probably hire everyone right off the bat! (you probably would not have come here if you had plenty of money to hire everyone)
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
I would have liked to do LLC except that it is more expensive to set it up compared to corp. there are record keeping requirements on corp... but if you are a good CEO, you will keep records for any company... no matter what legal style of organization.
The only operational benefit of S-corp or llc is the pass through taxation... i.e. income is taxed only once... c-corp has to be taxed on profits... on the flip side, however, you may potentially have a company that does very little business in the first year and hence very little profits or taxes... you could give yourself a handsome (but reasonable) salary and hence declare loss or zero profits... there are ways..
finally, I recommend spending the extra time, money, effort to read a few books (like "Inc yourself") and subscribe to inc magazine, entrepreneur magazine to do all legal and accounting stuff yourself in the first 1 2 years... you will learn a lot! on the other hand if you are starting with large capital base, then you can probably hire everyone right off the bat! (you probably would not have come here if you had plenty of money to hire everyone)
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
2010 Apple Retro HD wallpaper. +1. Share. Add to favourites. Login to favourites
dbevis
March 14th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Nope. I do have email in it, but found that useless. I"m sort of a bipolar technogeek, I guess. Deep excess in some areas, total disdain in others.
more...
mambarg
07-27 08:14 PM
How about if Company closes down ?
hair 37k: funny+hd+wallpapers
txh1b
04-20 10:56 AM
In the absence of a date, it is 6 moths from admitted date, by default. You may confirm this by calling USCIS.
That is not true. There is no default assumption and call center folks have no knowledge about things.
I have first hand experience with the same scenario at the same airport and CBP said it was a good idea to come back rather than assume a 6 month stay.
That is not true. There is no default assumption and call center folks have no knowledge about things.
I have first hand experience with the same scenario at the same airport and CBP said it was a good idea to come back rather than assume a 6 month stay.
more...
ravik
08-03 01:51 PM
Yes it is
hot about Wallpaper retro,
andy garcia
11-08 01:48 PM
Do you mean EB based AOS alone is 655K? 1.3 million is I-130 petition which is different from AOS.
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
more...
house HD Wallpapers + Retro Car
GC20??
08-12 03:26 PM
As my priority date is current I contacted my local congressman's office for help with my I-485. NSC replied back to the office (see reply below) saying my background checks are still on. But the officer at the infopass appointment said my backgrounds checks are complete. I don't know whom to believe.
Is this some kind of standard reply that USCIS is giving for Congressman's or Senators case status inquiry?
Good morning XXXXXXXXXXX,
Re: I-485s <Applicant Name>
I have conversed with those in charge of these cases.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
committed to adjudicating immigration benefits in a timely, efficient
manner that ensures public safety and national security.
Toward that end, USCIS requires extensive background checks for every
application or petition it adjudicates. While background checks for
most applications or petitions are completed quickly, a small percentage
of cases involve unresolved background check issues that result in
adjudication delays.
Background checks involve more than just the initial submission of and
response related to biographical information and fingerprints. When
checks and/or a review of an administrative record reveal an issue
potentially impacting an applicant's eligibility for the requested
immigration benefit, further inquiry is needed. The inquiry may include
an additional interview and/or the need to contact another agency for
updates or more comprehensive information. If it is determined that an
outside agency possesses relevant information about a case, USCIS
requests such information for review. Upon gathering and assessing all
available information, USCIS then adjudicates the application as
expeditiously as possible.
We have checked into your constituent's case and have been assured that
the agency is aware of your inquiry, and is monitoring progress related
to it. However, unresolved issues in your constituent's case require
thorough review before a decision can be rendered. Unfortunately, we
cannot speculate as to when this review process will be completed.
We realize that your constituent may feel frustrated by delays related
to his or her case. As an agency, we must weigh individual
inconvenience against the broader concerns of public safety and national
security.
We hope this information and assurance are helpful. If we may be of
assistance in the future, please let us know.
I hope this information is helpful to you. At this time I am closing the
inquiry on this matter.
Thank you,
<Officer Name>
Immigration Services Officer
NSC Congressional Unit
Is this some kind of standard reply that USCIS is giving for Congressman's or Senators case status inquiry?
Good morning XXXXXXXXXXX,
Re: I-485s <Applicant Name>
I have conversed with those in charge of these cases.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
committed to adjudicating immigration benefits in a timely, efficient
manner that ensures public safety and national security.
Toward that end, USCIS requires extensive background checks for every
application or petition it adjudicates. While background checks for
most applications or petitions are completed quickly, a small percentage
of cases involve unresolved background check issues that result in
adjudication delays.
Background checks involve more than just the initial submission of and
response related to biographical information and fingerprints. When
checks and/or a review of an administrative record reveal an issue
potentially impacting an applicant's eligibility for the requested
immigration benefit, further inquiry is needed. The inquiry may include
an additional interview and/or the need to contact another agency for
updates or more comprehensive information. If it is determined that an
outside agency possesses relevant information about a case, USCIS
requests such information for review. Upon gathering and assessing all
available information, USCIS then adjudicates the application as
expeditiously as possible.
We have checked into your constituent's case and have been assured that
the agency is aware of your inquiry, and is monitoring progress related
to it. However, unresolved issues in your constituent's case require
thorough review before a decision can be rendered. Unfortunately, we
cannot speculate as to when this review process will be completed.
We realize that your constituent may feel frustrated by delays related
to his or her case. As an agency, we must weigh individual
inconvenience against the broader concerns of public safety and national
security.
We hope this information and assurance are helpful. If we may be of
assistance in the future, please let us know.
I hope this information is helpful to you. At this time I am closing the
inquiry on this matter.
Thank you,
<Officer Name>
Immigration Services Officer
NSC Congressional Unit
tattoo Retro Color Mess wallpaper
smuggymba
11-09 04:02 PM
BS post. How the hell is it related to immigration. Use other websites for this.
more...
pictures wallpaper retro.
waitingnwaiting
11-29 02:43 PM
Any news on this?Will they give EAD?
Please ask the lawyer who said that and let us know if this is happening.
Please ask the lawyer who said that and let us know if this is happening.
dresses 2011 hd wallpapers widescreen
gc4me
07-05 09:02 PM
Please let me know if anyone/your friend has port PD using receipt#. Logically it should be possible, as USCIS should pull everything from DB using receipt#. The question is has anyone successfully done this?
more...
makeup HD Wallpapers
smsthss
07-05 12:36 PM
anybody on this !!
girlfriend desktop wallpaper retro.
InTheMoment
04-25 12:23 PM
Mail sent by CIS has a endorsment on their envelopes "Return Service Requested". USPS does NOT forward mail with such endorsements.
Even if online address change thru AR-11 has not taken effect, post office will forward your mail to your new address for 12 months - make sure you fill out change of address form with postal dept immediately
Even if online address change thru AR-11 has not taken effect, post office will forward your mail to your new address for 12 months - make sure you fill out change of address form with postal dept immediately
hairstyles And Side 2009 HD wallpaper
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)
ineedhelp
07-17 07:10 PM
Hello Sir/Madam,
I badly need some advice with regards to a policy which i have in my current employment deputation letter for working in US.
A brief info about me :
1. I'm basically an employee of Wipro, India deputed in US on H1B.
2. As part of this travel, there is a mandatory clause to accept certain policies of wipro ensuring that i do not move out of wipro in USA without giving a 2 months notice and also a liquidity damages of 4,20,000 INR equivalent to 10,000 $.
My current issue :
1. Its been about 2 yrs that i've been serving for Wipro in US and now in a state where i want to move out. I got a pretty good offer from another company that augurs well for my future.
2. I Can give only 3 weeks of notice.
Advice needed :
1. Can i leave now with 3 weeks notice knowing that i had mandatorily signed the policy of wipro in india before coming over to USA.
2. What are the legal implications of this? If wipro serves a notice do i need to reply to that knowing that as per H1B labor laws of USCIS, a company cannot force anybody to give a notice period of more than 2 weeks?
Your suggestions will do a world of good to me. Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Ineedhelp
I badly need some advice with regards to a policy which i have in my current employment deputation letter for working in US.
A brief info about me :
1. I'm basically an employee of Wipro, India deputed in US on H1B.
2. As part of this travel, there is a mandatory clause to accept certain policies of wipro ensuring that i do not move out of wipro in USA without giving a 2 months notice and also a liquidity damages of 4,20,000 INR equivalent to 10,000 $.
My current issue :
1. Its been about 2 yrs that i've been serving for Wipro in US and now in a state where i want to move out. I got a pretty good offer from another company that augurs well for my future.
2. I Can give only 3 weeks of notice.
Advice needed :
1. Can i leave now with 3 weeks notice knowing that i had mandatorily signed the policy of wipro in india before coming over to USA.
2. What are the legal implications of this? If wipro serves a notice do i need to reply to that knowing that as per H1B labor laws of USCIS, a company cannot force anybody to give a notice period of more than 2 weeks?
Your suggestions will do a world of good to me. Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Ineedhelp
baburob2
11-02 02:42 PM
As per my knowledge, GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment