babuworld
11-19 03:33 PM
Gurus , I dont know if this question have been addressed before. I am currently on H1B and is valid still july 2009. But i dont have stamping on my passport. I am waiting for AP for my wife and myself. If we user AP to India Trip then
1.Is my H1B still valid?
2. What will be the status? My employer didnt apply for EAD at this movement.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
1.Is my H1B still valid?
2. What will be the status? My employer didnt apply for EAD at this movement.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
hebron
08-16 01:47 PM
If the employer did not pay you salary that he agreed to pay then you could complain to DOL. You stand a sure chance to get paid if you bring this to DOL's notice. You can do this anonymously. DOL would also slap your employer with a fine and he would be banned from hiring H1-B workers for few years.
sunny1000
02-09 03:00 AM
well i got marriage ceremony , not civil yet...because i didn't know since he have this problem in court. and he says that they would let him out once he's in jail.. the chance of he goes to jail is 50 50... if goes he will get about 18 months. will still can do my papers?
I am not an expert here but, can you not get a certificate from the church that you are married while you are waiting for the official certifcate? see below:
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=258893&highlight=marriage+certificate+church
You can also search the above site for answers. But, in the end, please consult a good attorney who is familiar with both immigration and criminal law.
I am not an expert here but, can you not get a certificate from the church that you are married while you are waiting for the official certifcate? see below:
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=258893&highlight=marriage+certificate+church
You can also search the above site for answers. But, in the end, please consult a good attorney who is familiar with both immigration and criminal law.
abqguy
09-16 03:35 PM
Will call the rest during my next break :)
more...
seekerofpeace
09-13 09:38 AM
Folks,
I am really amazed to see the verbal war of words between these two artificially created groups aka the lines of "Divide and Rule" policy by the erstwhile masters of our country...
I can understand the feelings but the profanity and the language used won't lead us anywhere.
Frustration is the only common thing among the EBI applicants...some more some less...
I know of a lot of EB2s like me who came to this country for higher studies more than a decade back and got delayed in filing for their residency and had to suffer...While many who came with a job here and filed using EB3 then, have their parents as residents now....
Why is there no anger towards the many L1 managers who get residency through EB1.without much educational qualifications and forget about national interest waiver...I know a few, who came in 2006 and are residents within a year or so....
I also saw many of my friends through unfair labor substitutions got ahead of me unfairly and are now citizens...
Bottomline is people won't apply in a particular category unless they think it is best in their interests...In this economy most companies are tightening their purse.....it is a common fact that 90% of EB I applicants are software engineers.the demand of which will wane over the years in the immediate future and next generation technology demand will increase aka green and biotech....and much water has flowed in Mississipi since the days of Y2K when even people with fraud degrees and vague backgrounds came here and flourished......
The infighting reminds me of the crab story in which of all the baskets of various sea animals/fishes in a fish market the only basket whose lid was open was one with crabs...a buyer when enquired the uniqueness of that crab basket was promptly told by the seller that in this basket if any crab wants to go out and be free all the other crabs will join and pull it back to the basket so I don't have to worry.......
Let's not be these crabs....I am sure there exists common grounds in IV otherwise if this continues I am sure there will be a vertical split in IV...between EB2 and EBI..and ROW will laugh at us.........
SoP
I am really amazed to see the verbal war of words between these two artificially created groups aka the lines of "Divide and Rule" policy by the erstwhile masters of our country...
I can understand the feelings but the profanity and the language used won't lead us anywhere.
Frustration is the only common thing among the EBI applicants...some more some less...
I know of a lot of EB2s like me who came to this country for higher studies more than a decade back and got delayed in filing for their residency and had to suffer...While many who came with a job here and filed using EB3 then, have their parents as residents now....
Why is there no anger towards the many L1 managers who get residency through EB1.without much educational qualifications and forget about national interest waiver...I know a few, who came in 2006 and are residents within a year or so....
I also saw many of my friends through unfair labor substitutions got ahead of me unfairly and are now citizens...
Bottomline is people won't apply in a particular category unless they think it is best in their interests...In this economy most companies are tightening their purse.....it is a common fact that 90% of EB I applicants are software engineers.the demand of which will wane over the years in the immediate future and next generation technology demand will increase aka green and biotech....and much water has flowed in Mississipi since the days of Y2K when even people with fraud degrees and vague backgrounds came here and flourished......
The infighting reminds me of the crab story in which of all the baskets of various sea animals/fishes in a fish market the only basket whose lid was open was one with crabs...a buyer when enquired the uniqueness of that crab basket was promptly told by the seller that in this basket if any crab wants to go out and be free all the other crabs will join and pull it back to the basket so I don't have to worry.......
Let's not be these crabs....I am sure there exists common grounds in IV otherwise if this continues I am sure there will be a vertical split in IV...between EB2 and EBI..and ROW will laugh at us.........
SoP
WillIBLucky
12-22 01:48 PM
I did not say that you cannot. I only said if the previous I140 was revoked due to fraud by USICS then you cannot port the PD to your new application.
Yes even if the I140 is cancelled by previous employer but was clean then you can still use the PD with your new application.
Check in the Sheela murthy chat session dated : December 18, 2006 and search for "my employer cancels I-I40?"
Looks like we can port the priority date ..., even our employers cancels I-140....
Yes even if the I140 is cancelled by previous employer but was clean then you can still use the PD with your new application.
Check in the Sheela murthy chat session dated : December 18, 2006 and search for "my employer cancels I-I40?"
Looks like we can port the priority date ..., even our employers cancels I-140....
more...
diwa209
07-21 03:02 PM
Gcfever007,
thanks for the post.. on your point below -
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
doesnt my PD have to be current for me to apply for her 485? What if the PD is not current at the time after my approval?! I will not be able to apply for her 485?
My guess(Only a guess!, as you can tell from my no. of posts) is that if the primary applicants priority date is not current, the spouse will not be allowed to apply for I-485 and hence will become "out of status" as soon as the I-485 is approved. Good, if the dates become current(and you do apply for spouses I-485) within 180 days as we are protected under 245(K). Otherwise only option is for spouse to leave. I am not sure what happens after that.
My assumption is based on the fact that if INS does not allow for spouses I-485 to be filed as soon as she enters the country on H4 anyway, why would they allow her to apply after approval.
If this is correct then its a 'gotcha'.
Questions:
1) Should the spouse go to the home country and file a 'Follow to join' ?(on basis of marriage before approval)
2) Can a spouse file a 'Follow to join' before leaving the home country to join primary applicant in H4, anyway (even though I-485 is not approved at that time). Just to be one step ahead, and anticipating this situation?
3) Are there any other options?
Can a senior member please clarify?
thanks for the post.. on your point below -
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
doesnt my PD have to be current for me to apply for her 485? What if the PD is not current at the time after my approval?! I will not be able to apply for her 485?
My guess(Only a guess!, as you can tell from my no. of posts) is that if the primary applicants priority date is not current, the spouse will not be allowed to apply for I-485 and hence will become "out of status" as soon as the I-485 is approved. Good, if the dates become current(and you do apply for spouses I-485) within 180 days as we are protected under 245(K). Otherwise only option is for spouse to leave. I am not sure what happens after that.
My assumption is based on the fact that if INS does not allow for spouses I-485 to be filed as soon as she enters the country on H4 anyway, why would they allow her to apply after approval.
If this is correct then its a 'gotcha'.
Questions:
1) Should the spouse go to the home country and file a 'Follow to join' ?(on basis of marriage before approval)
2) Can a spouse file a 'Follow to join' before leaving the home country to join primary applicant in H4, anyway (even though I-485 is not approved at that time). Just to be one step ahead, and anticipating this situation?
3) Are there any other options?
Can a senior member please clarify?
anilsal
08-05 08:04 PM
get relief from retrogression. Capture of unused visa numbers etc will make us ignore how many apps USCIS received.
Good thing is that people will get interim benefits like EAD/AP.
Good thing is that people will get interim benefits like EAD/AP.
more...
sands_14
06-11 03:21 PM
I dont want your colour to change but media keeps writing stuff,i guess we are intelligent enough to make our informed judgements.
I do respect your view if you hold that as per your own judgement but I feel the time calls for teaming up with President rather than going after him.
This will do us good I guess.Rest, its your color,you can decide which one you want to wear:)
I do respect your view if you hold that as per your own judgement but I feel the time calls for teaming up with President rather than going after him.
This will do us good I guess.Rest, its your color,you can decide which one you want to wear:)
grupak
06-13 06:44 PM
Perhaps we can write as well in addition to the calls. There is still around a week before the bills come to the floor.
more...
piperwarrior
08-14 02:44 PM
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
zCool
12-04 02:42 AM
You were supposed to get 92$ / hr for a LC you applied for in 2001??
exactly what is it that you do/did?
exactly what is it that you do/did?
more...
puskeygadha
05-22 11:33 AM
My question was
how long after the comment period the rule will be implemented from
past experience
how long after the comment period the rule will be implemented from
past experience
glen
04-09 04:42 PM
Approved I-140 is good enough for applying for three year extension. I don't think there is any rule to wait for 365 days after I-140. I guess the 365 day rule is for pending labour.
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
more...
pd052009
08-20 02:38 PM
Considering the amount for H1 transfers(Hope the economy improves a lot for easy h1 transfer), the collectable amount will be more than 600M.
smmakani
05-14 07:20 PM
Thanks IV Core. We are all with you.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-27 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)
gcfriend65
12-07 02:47 PM
Its ok to take online classes as long as you are on your h-1.
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
satyasaich
01-27 07:02 AM
US needs EB1 and Ph.Ds
Others not contribute as much
Looks like you are EB1, but your comments are reflecting mindset of uneducated person / so many members of congress and senate of this country.
What a pity
But for sure, i'm happy to see something related to EB immigration is addressed ( no matter which 'category' that is)
Others not contribute as much
Looks like you are EB1, but your comments are reflecting mindset of uneducated person / so many members of congress and senate of this country.
What a pity
But for sure, i'm happy to see something related to EB immigration is addressed ( no matter which 'category' that is)
mhtanim
02-26 10:27 AM
Hi one question,,,if I go home to my country to study using H4 while my GC is pending,then suddenly the GC was sent to my sister here in US,can my sister just mail my GC to me in my country so that if i go back here in the US,i can present my GC to the US immigration???uh!im confussed!thanks!
Congratulations on your GC. Yes, tell your sister to send you the GC by mail. Once you get it, you can get back into the U.S. using your GC. I know few people who have done this. Good luck.
Congratulations on your GC. Yes, tell your sister to send you the GC by mail. Once you get it, you can get back into the U.S. using your GC. I know few people who have done this. Good luck.
haifromsk@yahoo.com
02-08 11:51 PM
GUYS please stop advicing her. Let her consult an attorney. Please do not lead
her in any direction. She need to contact an immigration and possibly civil and criminal attorney. An immigration attorney might lead her in the right direction. Super moderator already suggested that so please listen to what he said. Estrela please don't waste your time looking for answers in this thread. Answers given by common people can be incorrect and misleading. Immigration attorney is the way to go.
Good luck and god bless you
As gsc999 said peoples here mostly know about "Employment Based GC" not much about "Family Based GC" .... Still few questions if we can guide you to the right place...
a) What is your current Immigration Status ?
b) Do you have SSN ?
c) Forget about he goes to Jail/not is it impossible to get your "Marriage Certified" or at least put the Application before March 31st ? You have almost 51 days ...Based on that a lawyer can guide you but if you dont have a Marriage Certficate no one can really help... You know !
d) Lets the Justice system decide he goes to Jail or not but if unfortunately he is convicted and goes to Jail for 18 months do you want to live/continue your marriage with him after he comes out ?
e) Based on Marriage with US Citizen they give you "conditional GC" - and they would verify after 2-3 years if your marriage is a "Bonafide Marriage" etc... and then only give you a "unconditional GC"
That's why you will see those fake "immigration marriage" start giving problem after 2-3 years and end up in mutual Divorce. Be cautious about converting you GC to a regular "unconditional GC" .
Good Luck !
her in any direction. She need to contact an immigration and possibly civil and criminal attorney. An immigration attorney might lead her in the right direction. Super moderator already suggested that so please listen to what he said. Estrela please don't waste your time looking for answers in this thread. Answers given by common people can be incorrect and misleading. Immigration attorney is the way to go.
Good luck and god bless you
As gsc999 said peoples here mostly know about "Employment Based GC" not much about "Family Based GC" .... Still few questions if we can guide you to the right place...
a) What is your current Immigration Status ?
b) Do you have SSN ?
c) Forget about he goes to Jail/not is it impossible to get your "Marriage Certified" or at least put the Application before March 31st ? You have almost 51 days ...Based on that a lawyer can guide you but if you dont have a Marriage Certficate no one can really help... You know !
d) Lets the Justice system decide he goes to Jail or not but if unfortunately he is convicted and goes to Jail for 18 months do you want to live/continue your marriage with him after he comes out ?
e) Based on Marriage with US Citizen they give you "conditional GC" - and they would verify after 2-3 years if your marriage is a "Bonafide Marriage" etc... and then only give you a "unconditional GC"
That's why you will see those fake "immigration marriage" start giving problem after 2-3 years and end up in mutual Divorce. Be cautious about converting you GC to a regular "unconditional GC" .
Good Luck !