sheela
09-23 10:09 AM
[QUOTE=smartboy75;292226]09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
I appreciate your posting this useful info and gave you green.
Is there a 'response time' from Ombudsman office?.
I appreciate your posting this useful info and gave you green.
Is there a 'response time' from Ombudsman office?.
wallpaper quotations on life. quotes on
waiting4gc
07-17 06:48 PM
In fact your latest I94 number is needed on ALL your forms. So you will not be able to even complete the forms till you get back. So either
1) Cut your trip short and return
OR
2) Continue your vacation and fill up all the forms electronically and get it verified by your lawyers if they agree to do so and then update it with the latest I94 after getting back
So do I actually have to be in the US to mail in the AOS forms (I-485s)? I've been a legal US resident for years on an H1-B, and have been fortunate to have never had out-of-status issues or anything like that. BUT, as it happens, I'm up in Canada on vacation at the moment, planning to return next week. I've never had to get a visa stamp or surrender I-94 or any of that stuf.
Do I need to actually be back in the US before lawyer sends in AOS forms ? Or is it sufficient that I'm a resident and will be back in the US once the AOS is processed.
- GS
1) Cut your trip short and return
OR
2) Continue your vacation and fill up all the forms electronically and get it verified by your lawyers if they agree to do so and then update it with the latest I94 after getting back
So do I actually have to be in the US to mail in the AOS forms (I-485s)? I've been a legal US resident for years on an H1-B, and have been fortunate to have never had out-of-status issues or anything like that. BUT, as it happens, I'm up in Canada on vacation at the moment, planning to return next week. I've never had to get a visa stamp or surrender I-94 or any of that stuf.
Do I need to actually be back in the US before lawyer sends in AOS forms ? Or is it sufficient that I'm a resident and will be back in the US once the AOS is processed.
- GS
akred
06-01 02:41 AM
The White House has put up a fact sheet. Reason I came across it is because Google groups it together with our press releases when returning results. This fact sheet states twice that the bill will eliminate existing EB backlogs. Do they know something we don't?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070531-19.html
3. The Bill Will Eliminate The Current Application Backlog For Employment-Based Visas And Make 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Visas Available Today.
Once The Backlogs Of Employment-Based Applicants And Family-Based Applicants Are Cleared, There Will Be 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Green Cards Today. The bill makes 247,000 green cards immediately available under the merit-based system each year for the first five years after enactment.
Also, check out the sample points assignments at the end of the fact sheet.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070531-19.html
3. The Bill Will Eliminate The Current Application Backlog For Employment-Based Visas And Make 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Visas Available Today.
Once The Backlogs Of Employment-Based Applicants And Family-Based Applicants Are Cleared, There Will Be 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Green Cards Today. The bill makes 247,000 green cards immediately available under the merit-based system each year for the first five years after enactment.
Also, check out the sample points assignments at the end of the fact sheet.
2011 A life without it is like a
hopefulgc
08-21 11:26 AM
Man, I lost my patience with them long back.
My case is NSC-EAC-NSC
I keep a log of anything "useful" I am told every time I speak to them. And usually, the first few mins are wasted in them giving me wrong info, me telling them what they told me last time and them finally agreeing with it after re-checking their screens.
btw .. it is indeed super-frustrating and unacceptable they way they are bouncing your case around.
Why is USCIS forgetting that we are paying for their third grade services?
I broke my politeness today.USCIS inconsistency broke the limits for me.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
My case is NSC-EAC-NSC
I keep a log of anything "useful" I am told every time I speak to them. And usually, the first few mins are wasted in them giving me wrong info, me telling them what they told me last time and them finally agreeing with it after re-checking their screens.
btw .. it is indeed super-frustrating and unacceptable they way they are bouncing your case around.
Why is USCIS forgetting that we are paying for their third grade services?
I broke my politeness today.USCIS inconsistency broke the limits for me.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
more...
gsc999
09-07 12:54 PM
I noticed that California has around 20 names. I know that around 35 to 40 ppl are flying from CA. I think that is would be a similar case with other states.
Guys, this is required info. that will allow us to schedule an appointment with lawmakers. We have to provide this info. to them to receive meeting confirmation.
Please add your information asap, this is urgent and important
Guys, this is required info. that will allow us to schedule an appointment with lawmakers. We have to provide this info. to them to receive meeting confirmation.
Please add your information asap, this is urgent and important
hebron
08-16 02:50 PM
Hi Hebron,
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
You have a valid H1 with the new employer (client), so there should be nothing wrong working with the client.
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
You have a valid H1 with the new employer (client), so there should be nothing wrong working with the client.
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
more...
chaituk
10-21 11:42 AM
Hi, I am in the same boat as you. Can you please provide your experience with filing the future employment I-485 and if AC21 is possible.
My question is: Can you continue to work for employer B while employer A files future employment I-485 and can we use AC-21 after 180 days without being employed with employer A?
My question is: Can you continue to work for employer B while employer A files future employment I-485 and can we use AC-21 after 180 days without being employed with employer A?
2010 quotes about life
konga1978
01-22 10:34 AM
Hi friends,
I live in weston (south florida). This thread is effort to gather as many as we can from south florida, help and bring awarness regarding Green Card processing to make things work faster.
Cheers,
Naveen
I live in weston (south florida). This thread is effort to gather as many as we can from south florida, help and bring awarness regarding Green Card processing to make things work faster.
Cheers,
Naveen
more...
amitk81
12-10 02:35 PM
Is it possible to share your sources for the same.
thanks
Amit
thanks
Amit
hair Life, Quotations | Tags:
kprgroup
08-10 09:02 AM
Good Morning,
I went to the uscis local office. The officer told my case SRC-****7236 (765) Renewal was denied on 06/25/2010. He didn’t have the denial details. He told he will send an email to Texas USCIS asking the details. He also told my 485 motion approved and my recent travel document approved but strange that they denied EAD.
Unfortunately we (Myself & Lawyer) never received a denial notice.
My EAD is expiring sep 3rd. I know mostly they denied by without seeing my 485 motion approval.I am requesting denial notice by opening SR
Help me and suggest to overcome this SITUATION (Another wrong denial by USCIS.)
Thanks
KPR
-----------------
Background OF Myself
----------------------
1)Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
2)Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
3)September 2008 I have Joined employer “B” by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
4)Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denials in October 2008.
5)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
I went to the uscis local office. The officer told my case SRC-****7236 (765) Renewal was denied on 06/25/2010. He didn’t have the denial details. He told he will send an email to Texas USCIS asking the details. He also told my 485 motion approved and my recent travel document approved but strange that they denied EAD.
Unfortunately we (Myself & Lawyer) never received a denial notice.
My EAD is expiring sep 3rd. I know mostly they denied by without seeing my 485 motion approval.I am requesting denial notice by opening SR
Help me and suggest to overcome this SITUATION (Another wrong denial by USCIS.)
Thanks
KPR
-----------------
Background OF Myself
----------------------
1)Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
2)Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
3)September 2008 I have Joined employer “B” by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
4)Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denials in October 2008.
5)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
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)
hot quotes on life pictures
desidas
01-22 12:55 AM
<< bump??
more...
house wallpaper_11. quotes and
desi3933
06-11 02:39 PM
I am in my 8 yr. Have a H1-B approved Untill 2008 Dec
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
3 year H1 extension from date of application (for example: June 2007 to June 2010).
If you move to Company B, you need to restart GC (i.e. new LC and new 140). One can port PD from old 140 to new I-140, however there is a risk involved if the previous I-140 is revoked or canceled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
3 year H1 extension from date of application (for example: June 2007 to June 2010).
If you move to Company B, you need to restart GC (i.e. new LC and new 140). One can port PD from old 140 to new I-140, however there is a risk involved if the previous I-140 is revoked or canceled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
tattoo cool life quotes. quotations
gcwait2007
06-29 11:58 PM
Chanduv23,
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
more...
pictures life quotes on pictures.
nixstor
06-28 11:00 PM
Knock Knock
dresses quotations on life. quotations
vinzak
01-07 12:10 PM
waitingwaiting, may you could change the subject of this thread to something like "Bill to move DV numbers to EB!!!". It'll probably get more attention.
more...
makeup Posted in: Quotes About Life
BharatPremi
03-17 10:26 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
girlfriend Sample quotation: quot;Life is a
txh1b
05-06 11:51 PM
No one can enter your property without your permission or consent unless they have a warrant. The officer has to ask you if they can come in and you might have said yes and hence the result. You could very well say no and walk outside the door to talk to them.
Some PDs have educational videos to the police officers. A good example and a must watch link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkaMUp_JqIE
Some PDs have educational videos to the police officers. A good example and a must watch link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkaMUp_JqIE
hairstyles Includes the popular Quotes of
humdesi
02-17 03:59 AM
Which was effectively nullified by
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
immi_seeker
10-05 12:29 AM
Based on current estimates, it will be 10-15 years time, unless u r son/daughter can sponsor you prior... u will end up in family quota wait still.
I am not sarcastic this is the reality,
May be there wil be a big queue for that also at that time
I am not sarcastic this is the reality,
May be there wil be a big queue for that also at that time
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.
