walking_dude
11-27 09:24 PM
Thanks Rajeev, MB, new_gc_guy, grupak, GCkaMaara, coopheal for your pledge. I pledge a contribution of $100 as well for the rally, besides my continuing monthly contributions and participation in the rally.
Others, please step forward. Let us not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Let us help IV pull this thing for our sake.
Others, please step forward. Let us not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Let us help IV pull this thing for our sake.
wallpaper Google TV Logo 2
franklin
06-21 12:27 AM
I think if PD remains current and continues to be current after october, then the I-485s are processed and approved as per the receipt date(RD). So your RD matters if everything continues to be current. If they retrogress, then I-485s are still processed as per I-485 RD, regardless of PD, but if the that PD is not current, then it it will be "placed in suspense" until such PD will become current.
I'm assuming that will happen. PDs will be retrogressed back sometime in sep/oct. And they will process all the current flood of applications. Not sure when they will get to June and beyond RDs(as per processing times they r still processing late 2006 RDs now). And after few months(say 6 months) they will move forward the PDs few months at a time.
The above is just my theory. I could be totally off, so don't come to any conclusions.
This is my understanding too
I'm assuming that will happen. PDs will be retrogressed back sometime in sep/oct. And they will process all the current flood of applications. Not sure when they will get to June and beyond RDs(as per processing times they r still processing late 2006 RDs now). And after few months(say 6 months) they will move forward the PDs few months at a time.
The above is just my theory. I could be totally off, so don't come to any conclusions.
This is my understanding too
senk1s
05-08 02:29 PM
1. This is debated a lot - some attorneys feel send it only when they ask for it, some say it is better to send letter proactively
2. For these apps there can be a new attorney - i think the old G-28 for 485 will still be effective/ valid
3. As of now - it should be similar and subject to interpretation
4. Proferred wage is considered the minimum requirement - so i think it should be ok. But i dont know for a big jump
2. For these apps there can be a new attorney - i think the old G-28 for 485 will still be effective/ valid
3. As of now - it should be similar and subject to interpretation
4. Proferred wage is considered the minimum requirement - so i think it should be ok. But i dont know for a big jump
2011 Word! Image: Google.
idreamofgc
10-07 12:55 PM
Why not Fragomen clients ? DOL said that they didn't have different audit queues for random or targeted audits. My case will pass 15 months and I was thinking of asking Fragomen clients to query DOL.
I know this is not going to help that much..but hey..what do we have to loose now:D
I know this is not going to help that much..but hey..what do we have to loose now:D
more...
RandyK
07-15 03:18 PM
Congrats!!
EB2 or EB3 ?
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...
EB2 or EB3 ?
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...
Blog Feeds
09-27 10:50 AM
VIA USCIS.gov
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a final rule adjusting fees for immigration applications and petitions. Thefinal rule (http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-23725_PI.pdf)follows a period of public comment on a proposed version of the rule, which USCIS published in theFederal Register (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13991.pdf)on June 11, 2010. After encouraging stakeholders to share their input, USCIS considered all 225 comments received. The final rule will increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but will not increase the fee for the naturalization application. The rule will also reduce fees for six individual applications and petitions and will expand the availability of fee waivers to new categories. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register September 24, and the adjusted fees will go into effect on November 23, 2010.
USCIS is a primarily fee-based organization with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits. The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine whether it is recovering its costs to administer the nation�s immigration laws, process applications, and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities. Remaining funds come from appropriations provided annually by Congress. The final fee rule concludes a comprehensive fee review begun in 2009.
USCIS�s Fee-based Budget
Fees account for approximately $2.4 billion of USCIS�s $2.8 billion budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2011. More than two-thirds of the budget supports the adjudication of applications and petitions for immigration benefits at USCIS field offices, service centers, customer service call centers and records facilities. The remainder supports USCIS business transformation efforts and the funding of headquarters program offices.
The adjudication areas supported by fees include the following:
Family-based petitions - facilitating the process for close relatives to immigrate, gain permanent residency, travel and work;
Employment-based petitions - facilitating the process for current and prospective employees to immigrate to or stay in the U.S. temporarily;
Asylum and refugee processing - adjudicating asylum and processing refugees;
Naturalization - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. citizenship;
Special status programs - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. immigration status as a form of humanitarian aid to foreign nationals; and
Document issuance and renewal - verifying eligibility for, producing and issuing immigration documents.
USCIS�s fee revenue in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was much lower than projected, and fee revenue in fiscal year 2010 remains low. While USCIS did receive appropriations from Congress and made budget cuts of approximately $160 million, this has not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue. A fee adjustment, as detailed in the final rule, is necessary to ensure USCIS recovers the costs of its operations while also meeting the application processing goals identified in the 2007 fee rule.
Highlights of the 2010 Final Fee Rule
The final fee rule will increase the average application and petition fees by approximately 10 percent. In recognition of the unique importance of naturalization, the final fee rule contains no increase in the naturalization application fee.
The final fee rule establishes three new fees for:
Regional center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (EB-5);
Individuals seeking civil surgeon designation (with an exemption for certain physicians who examine service members, veterans, and their families at U.S. government facilities); and
Recovery of the USCIS cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the Department of State.
The final fee rule adjusts fees for the premium processing service. This adjustment will ensure that USCIS can continue to modernize as an efficient and effective organization.
The final fee rule reduces fees for six individual applications and petitions:
Petition for Alien Fianc� (Form I-129F);
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539);
Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Form I-698);
Application for Family Unity Benefits (Form I-817);
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document (Form N-565); and
Application for Travel Document (Form I-131), when filed for Refugee Travel Document.
The final fee rule eliminates two citizenship-related fees for those service members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces who are eligible to file an Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) with no fee:
Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings (Form N-336); and
Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600).
Lastly, the final fee rule expands the availability of fee waivers to new categories, including:
Individuals seeking humanitarian parole under an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131);
Individuals with any benefit request under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; and
Individuals filing a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) following a denial of any application or petition that did not initially require a fee.
Final Rule: Schedule of Fees
The following schedule lists the adjusted fees that will take effect on November 23, 2010, alongside the existing fees in effect until that date:
Form No.
Application/Petition Description
Existing Fees (effective through Nov. 22, 2010
Adjusted Fees (effective beginning Nov. 23, 2010)
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card $290 $365 I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document $320 $330 I-129/129CW Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker $320 $325 I-129F Petition for Alien Fianc�(e) $455 $340 I-130 Petition for Alien Relative $355 $420 I-131 Application for Travel Document $305 $360 I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker $475 $580 I-191 Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile $545 $585 I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant $545 $585 I-193 Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa $545 $585 I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. after Deportation or Removal $545 $585 I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion $585 $630 I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant $375 $405 I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status $930 $985 I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur $1,435 $1,500 I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status $300 $290 I-600/600A
I-800/800A Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition $670 $720 I-601 Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability $545 $585 I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement $545 $585 I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $710 $1,130 I-690 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility $185 $200 I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $545 $755 I-698 Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603) $1,370 $1,020 I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence $465 $505 I-765 Application for Employment Authorization $340 $380 I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits $440 $435 I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition $340 $405 I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions $2,850 $3,750 I-881 Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 105�110) $285 $285 I-907 Request for Premium Processing Service $1,000 $1,225 Civil Surgeon Designation $0 $615 I-924 Application for Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program $0 $6,230 N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention $235 $250 N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings $605 $650 N-400 Application for Naturalization $595 $595 N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes $305 $330 N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document $380 $345 N-600/600K Application for Certification of Citizenship/ Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322 $460 $600 Immigrant $0 $165 Biometrics Capturing, Processing, and Storing Biometric Information $80 $85
Last updated:09/23/2010
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/09/24/information-on-the-new-uscis-fee-increase.aspx?ref=rss)
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a final rule adjusting fees for immigration applications and petitions. Thefinal rule (http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-23725_PI.pdf)follows a period of public comment on a proposed version of the rule, which USCIS published in theFederal Register (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13991.pdf)on June 11, 2010. After encouraging stakeholders to share their input, USCIS considered all 225 comments received. The final rule will increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but will not increase the fee for the naturalization application. The rule will also reduce fees for six individual applications and petitions and will expand the availability of fee waivers to new categories. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register September 24, and the adjusted fees will go into effect on November 23, 2010.
USCIS is a primarily fee-based organization with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits. The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine whether it is recovering its costs to administer the nation�s immigration laws, process applications, and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities. Remaining funds come from appropriations provided annually by Congress. The final fee rule concludes a comprehensive fee review begun in 2009.
USCIS�s Fee-based Budget
Fees account for approximately $2.4 billion of USCIS�s $2.8 billion budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2011. More than two-thirds of the budget supports the adjudication of applications and petitions for immigration benefits at USCIS field offices, service centers, customer service call centers and records facilities. The remainder supports USCIS business transformation efforts and the funding of headquarters program offices.
The adjudication areas supported by fees include the following:
Family-based petitions - facilitating the process for close relatives to immigrate, gain permanent residency, travel and work;
Employment-based petitions - facilitating the process for current and prospective employees to immigrate to or stay in the U.S. temporarily;
Asylum and refugee processing - adjudicating asylum and processing refugees;
Naturalization - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. citizenship;
Special status programs - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. immigration status as a form of humanitarian aid to foreign nationals; and
Document issuance and renewal - verifying eligibility for, producing and issuing immigration documents.
USCIS�s fee revenue in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was much lower than projected, and fee revenue in fiscal year 2010 remains low. While USCIS did receive appropriations from Congress and made budget cuts of approximately $160 million, this has not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue. A fee adjustment, as detailed in the final rule, is necessary to ensure USCIS recovers the costs of its operations while also meeting the application processing goals identified in the 2007 fee rule.
Highlights of the 2010 Final Fee Rule
The final fee rule will increase the average application and petition fees by approximately 10 percent. In recognition of the unique importance of naturalization, the final fee rule contains no increase in the naturalization application fee.
The final fee rule establishes three new fees for:
Regional center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (EB-5);
Individuals seeking civil surgeon designation (with an exemption for certain physicians who examine service members, veterans, and their families at U.S. government facilities); and
Recovery of the USCIS cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the Department of State.
The final fee rule adjusts fees for the premium processing service. This adjustment will ensure that USCIS can continue to modernize as an efficient and effective organization.
The final fee rule reduces fees for six individual applications and petitions:
Petition for Alien Fianc� (Form I-129F);
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539);
Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Form I-698);
Application for Family Unity Benefits (Form I-817);
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document (Form N-565); and
Application for Travel Document (Form I-131), when filed for Refugee Travel Document.
The final fee rule eliminates two citizenship-related fees for those service members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces who are eligible to file an Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) with no fee:
Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings (Form N-336); and
Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600).
Lastly, the final fee rule expands the availability of fee waivers to new categories, including:
Individuals seeking humanitarian parole under an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131);
Individuals with any benefit request under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; and
Individuals filing a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) following a denial of any application or petition that did not initially require a fee.
Final Rule: Schedule of Fees
The following schedule lists the adjusted fees that will take effect on November 23, 2010, alongside the existing fees in effect until that date:
Form No.
Application/Petition Description
Existing Fees (effective through Nov. 22, 2010
Adjusted Fees (effective beginning Nov. 23, 2010)
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card $290 $365 I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document $320 $330 I-129/129CW Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker $320 $325 I-129F Petition for Alien Fianc�(e) $455 $340 I-130 Petition for Alien Relative $355 $420 I-131 Application for Travel Document $305 $360 I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker $475 $580 I-191 Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile $545 $585 I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant $545 $585 I-193 Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa $545 $585 I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. after Deportation or Removal $545 $585 I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion $585 $630 I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant $375 $405 I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status $930 $985 I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur $1,435 $1,500 I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status $300 $290 I-600/600A
I-800/800A Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition $670 $720 I-601 Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability $545 $585 I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement $545 $585 I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $710 $1,130 I-690 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility $185 $200 I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $545 $755 I-698 Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603) $1,370 $1,020 I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence $465 $505 I-765 Application for Employment Authorization $340 $380 I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits $440 $435 I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition $340 $405 I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions $2,850 $3,750 I-881 Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 105�110) $285 $285 I-907 Request for Premium Processing Service $1,000 $1,225 Civil Surgeon Designation $0 $615 I-924 Application for Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program $0 $6,230 N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention $235 $250 N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings $605 $650 N-400 Application for Naturalization $595 $595 N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes $305 $330 N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document $380 $345 N-600/600K Application for Certification of Citizenship/ Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322 $460 $600 Immigrant $0 $165 Biometrics Capturing, Processing, and Storing Biometric Information $80 $85
Last updated:09/23/2010
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/09/24/information-on-the-new-uscis-fee-increase.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
gsc999
02-14 12:17 AM
IV' ans of Southern California,
We need your help in making the Admin Fixes Campaign Successful. We are organizing a Southern California IV Meetup and Letter Signing Event this Weekend. We are targeting to get a 1000 letters signed and sent to the White House from our group. We need volunteers to print letter templates, get envelopes/stamps and most importantly bring family, friends and colleagues to this event.
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
We need your help in making the Admin Fixes Campaign Successful. We are organizing a Southern California IV Meetup and Letter Signing Event this Weekend. We are targeting to get a 1000 letters signed and sent to the White House from our group. We need volunteers to print letter templates, get envelopes/stamps and most importantly bring family, friends and colleagues to this event.
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
2010 See Google Logos At
immigrationvoice1
12-09 10:00 PM
My immigration status is H1 (485 pending EB2/INDIA). I am on the verge of completing my 2 year Masters in Computer Information Systems (MS-CIS) from Missouri State in Springfield, Missouri. Its a distance education Masters program with one week of on-campus residency every semester. The program is geared towards working IT professionals and its accredited by AACSB. The quality of education is excellent and fees is very nominal. I even got my employer to reimburse me for the tuition. Please see the following website for additional information on the program.
http://missouristate.edu/
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/default.asp
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/applicationprocess.asp
Please email me at arshstl@gmail.com for additional information.
Thanks for sharing the information!
http://missouristate.edu/
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/default.asp
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/applicationprocess.asp
Please email me at arshstl@gmail.com for additional information.
Thanks for sharing the information!
more...
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)
hair Google logo
rocky74
07-20 12:35 AM
Only those whose labor got approved prior to July can apply for 140/485. August Bulletin says "U" for all categories
It is hard to predict when the numbers will be available again in the future. They may open up for EB1 and for other countires except India, China, Phillipphines and Mexico.
You mean labor approved in July or Labor filed in July and approved before August 17. I understand that Priority date of July means that you must have filed the LCP in July.
It is hard to predict when the numbers will be available again in the future. They may open up for EB1 and for other countires except India, China, Phillipphines and Mexico.
You mean labor approved in July or Labor filed in July and approved before August 17. I understand that Priority date of July means that you must have filed the LCP in July.
more...
IneedAllGreen
02-26 11:59 AM
Two reason to go for Peoplesoft Softwares
1) Peoplesoft Enterprise ERP package is damn popular among HRMS software user world. Peoplesoft (before Oracle took over them) were earning major money/client on that package.
2) Peoplesoft Enterpriseone(This was JDEdwards earlier version of Oneworld ERP). Enterpriseone has strong Finance module which may helps you to grow in future in your professional career. You can be a functional consultant in finance or HRMS or both.
You can join any of several consulting company who are in Peoplesoft/ORacle/JDEdwards ERP business and for which they need MBA kind of background for their functional requirement at their client site. Trust me its not hard to learn functional part of these ERP packages. There are DEMO version of these software available to download and you can have guide for free from Oracle website. If you need more information then do send PM on my ID. May be I can send you more information.
Thanks
IneedAllGreen :)
I would like to ask the same question but a bit more specific.
For someone who is an MBA (Finance) with 7-8 yrs of Financial and HR benefits experience who wants to move to IT or IT related field what would you advice would be the best field to move to or best certification to take ?
Thanks
1) Peoplesoft Enterprise ERP package is damn popular among HRMS software user world. Peoplesoft (before Oracle took over them) were earning major money/client on that package.
2) Peoplesoft Enterpriseone(This was JDEdwards earlier version of Oneworld ERP). Enterpriseone has strong Finance module which may helps you to grow in future in your professional career. You can be a functional consultant in finance or HRMS or both.
You can join any of several consulting company who are in Peoplesoft/ORacle/JDEdwards ERP business and for which they need MBA kind of background for their functional requirement at their client site. Trust me its not hard to learn functional part of these ERP packages. There are DEMO version of these software available to download and you can have guide for free from Oracle website. If you need more information then do send PM on my ID. May be I can send you more information.
Thanks
IneedAllGreen :)
I would like to ask the same question but a bit more specific.
For someone who is an MBA (Finance) with 7-8 yrs of Financial and HR benefits experience who wants to move to IT or IT related field what would you advice would be the best field to move to or best certification to take ?
Thanks
hot Mosaic Google Logo using
rockstart
06-11 08:09 AM
Its not possible to keep photo copies of each and every I94 issued. I think as long as you have all you I20 and H1B docs you should be good. Plus tracking I94 records is their job not your's
more...
house See Google Logos At Google
gsc999
02-16 01:39 AM
See you there on Sunday
tattoo Google and the Irish Software
boreal
09-23 01:02 AM
09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
Wish they had something similar for AP too...anything? anyone?
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
Wish they had something similar for AP too...anything? anyone?
more...
pictures reinvent the Google logo
Iamthejuggler
03-03 10:16 AM
It says traditional and scanned, or vector, so i assume PS is fine as long it's vector art.
dresses a smaller Google logo then
cox
October 23rd, 2005, 12:08 AM
I like the second shot a lot. Nicely done.
Thanks!
I think the third shot needs to be closer. There's a little too much negative space around the arrangement. Just my 2 cents.
I think you're right...
The first shot....I'm not too sure about that one. Technically, it looks fine but it's not holding my attention.
I think the first shot needs more light.
I took several exposures of this wreath, and was having a devil of a time getting the white roses to show detail, and the washed out green of the leaves from looking like B&W. Also, I think that my DoF was too shallow, but I was trying to avoid any detail showing in the velvet. If I knew more about what I was doing...
Thanks!
I think the third shot needs to be closer. There's a little too much negative space around the arrangement. Just my 2 cents.
I think you're right...
The first shot....I'm not too sure about that one. Technically, it looks fine but it's not holding my attention.
I think the first shot needs more light.
I took several exposures of this wreath, and was having a devil of a time getting the white roses to show detail, and the washed out green of the leaves from looking like B&W. Also, I think that my DoF was too shallow, but I was trying to avoid any detail showing in the velvet. If I knew more about what I was doing...
more...
makeup google-wave-logo
9411b
03-06 12:56 PM
You are not alone.
We have the same problem.
EAD applied in July 07, EAD card received in Oct 07 and the card was made expired 01/01/07 by WAC.
Called USCIS hotline, tried new applications with WAC, TSC and Info pass, still waiting if WAC is going to correct its own mess.
Big headache.
Good luck everyone.
J
PS. concurrently filing with NSC then moved to WAC then to TSC. Now pending!!!!:(:(
We have the same problem.
EAD applied in July 07, EAD card received in Oct 07 and the card was made expired 01/01/07 by WAC.
Called USCIS hotline, tried new applications with WAC, TSC and Info pass, still waiting if WAC is going to correct its own mess.
Big headache.
Good luck everyone.
J
PS. concurrently filing with NSC then moved to WAC then to TSC. Now pending!!!!:(:(
girlfriend For more than a year Google
sina
04-16 10:28 AM
Hi Hope2007,
Did you talk to your attorney? How were you able to do so?
My attorney says I can do so, I have asked him how.
Our corporate office handles all and I do not have any information about this. I hope my attorney is correct and I do not find myself in trouble after I change location.
Please post hope2007 if you know how this is possible.
Thanks
Did you talk to your attorney? How were you able to do so?
My attorney says I can do so, I have asked him how.
Our corporate office handles all and I do not have any information about this. I hope my attorney is correct and I do not find myself in trouble after I change location.
Please post hope2007 if you know how this is possible.
Thanks
hairstyles On the one hand, the Google
sunray
10-07 03:57 PM
hi,
I am in a similar situation.
I have a valid visa stamped on my passport till the sept 2010. And I moved to company B after I was let go by company A. The I 797 approval for company B I got did not have the I 94.
I got the approval yesterday with a letter saying that my extension of stay has been rejected.
The letter also said that I was staying in the country after my H1B with company A has been revoked, which is against the law. It is also mentioned that my I 129 has been mailed to the consulate of my choice(which is in India).
Does he mean that I need to attend the consulate to get my I 129? If so, has the visa stamp been revoked?
Is it ok if I attend the consulate in neighbouring countries like mexico or bahamas instead of going to India?
If the Visa stamping has not been revoked, can I just cross the border for an I 94 card?
Any advice is valuable to me.
Thanks in advance.
I am in a similar situation.
I have a valid visa stamped on my passport till the sept 2010. And I moved to company B after I was let go by company A. The I 797 approval for company B I got did not have the I 94.
I got the approval yesterday with a letter saying that my extension of stay has been rejected.
The letter also said that I was staying in the country after my H1B with company A has been revoked, which is against the law. It is also mentioned that my I 129 has been mailed to the consulate of my choice(which is in India).
Does he mean that I need to attend the consulate to get my I 129? If so, has the visa stamp been revoked?
Is it ok if I attend the consulate in neighbouring countries like mexico or bahamas instead of going to India?
If the Visa stamping has not been revoked, can I just cross the border for an I 94 card?
Any advice is valuable to me.
Thanks in advance.
retropain
08-25 02:02 PM
the media is going to be busy covering the elections till Nov first week or two. so you're not going to get much media coverage.
idea is not bad if it can be implemented correctly, with employer support of course.
idea is not bad if it can be implemented correctly, with employer support of course.
solaris27
10-02 11:16 AM
Yes it will be Pending Adjustment for all of you if you use EAD .
But as backup and if not required just be on H1B visa and do job for same company again if possible .
or if you are changing company file H1B extension as backup.
But as backup and if not required just be on H1B visa and do job for same company again if possible .
or if you are changing company file H1B extension as backup.
No comments:
Post a Comment