superdude
07-17 11:26 PM
Am I in the same situation? My spouse left US today to INDIA. However we filled the 485 on July 2nd. Will they consider that as abandonment of the application?
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
wallpaper 11 James Durbin
bobzibub
09-19 05:55 PM
Excellent Strategy
For the lay person to understand the economic consequences of skilled immigration, one can ask what would happen if they took a million highly skilled American workers out of the economy. That would clearly be bad.
How would the removal of a million skilled non-Americans be different? The economy as a whole would take a major hit in both cases.
Cheers,
-b
For the lay person to understand the economic consequences of skilled immigration, one can ask what would happen if they took a million highly skilled American workers out of the economy. That would clearly be bad.
How would the removal of a million skilled non-Americans be different? The economy as a whole would take a major hit in both cases.
Cheers,
-b
snathan
08-18 03:16 PM
Thanks for the replies guys....
TXH1B,
The RFE as per my employer is about Vendor/Client Details and a latest paystub from the current job. Since I started working already and was getting paid, my employer generated a paystub and supplied the same.
I think you are in trouble. The USCIS asked for your previous employer's pay stub but you supplied the pay stub from current employer. There is a strong possibility for denial. Then your employment became unauthorized. So hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
TXH1B,
The RFE as per my employer is about Vendor/Client Details and a latest paystub from the current job. Since I started working already and was getting paid, my employer generated a paystub and supplied the same.
I think you are in trouble. The USCIS asked for your previous employer's pay stub but you supplied the pay stub from current employer. There is a strong possibility for denial. Then your employment became unauthorized. So hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
2011 Tags: james durbin american
ImmigrationAnswerMan
07-13 11:36 PM
Sangeetha:
USCIS does want to see that you worked for your prior H-1B employers, but USCIS is happy to accept recent paystubs to show this.
It doesn't hurt to submit experience letters, but as explained before, you do not need experience letters for H-1Bs.
USCIS does want to see that you worked for your prior H-1B employers, but USCIS is happy to accept recent paystubs to show this.
It doesn't hurt to submit experience letters, but as explained before, you do not need experience letters for H-1Bs.
more...
coopheal
11-10 05:13 PM
All,
IV has put in significant effort in creating this survey to map the strength of our community.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
Answered the the survey.
IV has put in significant effort in creating this survey to map the strength of our community.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
Answered the the survey.
gman
12-22 11:07 PM
Unlike H1B, at the time of layoff, if 485 is pending more than 6 months, you are still in legal status, (in h1b case there is no grace period). There is no time limit to find a similar job. You can stay at home for till your 485 approval, with legal status. Having said that, if INS asks for a eveidence of full time-permanat job you should be in a postion to show the job offer. In simple terms, tou should have a vaild job offer at the time of approval of your 485.
If i-485 has been pending for more than 6 months and I suddenly get laid off can i leave the country and come back when it's approved? Or can I leave the country and come back in a few months with or without job offer?
If i-485 has been pending for more than 6 months and I suddenly get laid off can i leave the country and come back when it's approved? Or can I leave the country and come back in a few months with or without job offer?
more...
sravani
05-15 01:05 PM
Here's a rather strange and may be uncommon situation for someone I know who needs suggestions from gurus here...such huge PD movements do result in strange situations such as these :)
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
My case is also similar and I decided to go with EB2
My EB3 PD is Nov 2002. I got promotion this year and same company applied for my EB2 labor via Perm and got approved with in couple of months.
My attorney already filed my 485 application concurrently while applying for EB2 I-140 PD (PP) last month. I got an RFE(edu: 3 year Engineering degree). My EB2 I-140 is approved yesterday after receiving the RFE response. It's better to utilize the EB2 category if you can, in case if they decide to retrogress again, it's likely that you will get the GC soon with EB2 PD than EB3 PD.
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
My case is also similar and I decided to go with EB2
My EB3 PD is Nov 2002. I got promotion this year and same company applied for my EB2 labor via Perm and got approved with in couple of months.
My attorney already filed my 485 application concurrently while applying for EB2 I-140 PD (PP) last month. I got an RFE(edu: 3 year Engineering degree). My EB2 I-140 is approved yesterday after receiving the RFE response. It's better to utilize the EB2 category if you can, in case if they decide to retrogress again, it's likely that you will get the GC soon with EB2 PD than EB3 PD.
2010 James Durbin – Closer To The
perm2gc
11-03 04:30 PM
The health benefit is actually indicated in my employment contract as part of my employment package. However, they later informed me that the health benefit is already part of my salary.
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
more...
andr.in
05-27 03:25 PM
lmao! These are great!
But the one fester made reminds me of the personal pages most estonians have! :P lol
I can't decide! They all suck <-- lol First time i've ever said that meaning that something is done well!
But the one fester made reminds me of the personal pages most estonians have! :P lol
I can't decide! They all suck <-- lol First time i've ever said that meaning that something is done well!
hair James Durbin made a grand
wooster
07-11 02:11 AM
I had the same thing happen to me, applied PP on June19, it reached on 20th got approved on June21. Status still shows pending, but the lawyer got the approval notice with an A# to boot...
Just to update, I got a CRIS mail that I was approved on the June21 and the online status changed to approved today....thats more than 2 weeks after the lawyer got the approval notice...snail mail seems faster then online notifications....why is everything so Topsy turvy with these guys only !!
Just to update, I got a CRIS mail that I was approved on the June21 and the online status changed to approved today....thats more than 2 weeks after the lawyer got the approval notice...snail mail seems faster then online notifications....why is everything so Topsy turvy with these guys only !!
more...
ash27
03-31 10:35 PM
I've read multiple posts but it is not clear if an EAD recipient can do contract work on W2.
My situation is that I work for a desi consulting co. and currently doing corp to corp with TekSystems. TekSystems is OK to employ me as a W-2. However, it is contract based employment. Could Gurus please advice if an EAD recipient can work on W-2 with vendors like TekSystems.
My situation is that I work for a desi consulting co. and currently doing corp to corp with TekSystems. TekSystems is OK to employ me as a W-2. However, it is contract based employment. Could Gurus please advice if an EAD recipient can work on W-2 with vendors like TekSystems.
hot Langone and James Durbin
bsbawa10
08-21 09:46 AM
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 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...
house James Durbin bit the dust
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)
tattoo James Durbin
CRAZYMONK
08-16 03:26 PM
There is not direct signed contract with the client and old employer. There are like 3 layers inbetween client and the old employer. old employer have contract with the middle vendor not the client.
But, one problem is this old employer made me sign the Employee Agreement document when i was going for my visa stamping. He is using that Agreement and using it against me. And also in the offer letter which he gave me he said he will revise or increase my pay every 6 months but never did that and he didn't gave any medical benifits also.
Thanks,
Srikanth
Srikanth,
It all depends on the language in the Agreement that you signed. More over in some state doesn't consider these kind of agreements.
Tell him that you are going to complain to DOL if he threatens you. Even though he sues you, as the reason behind your H1 transfer is not getting paid in time, there are very good chances getting final verdict in your favor.
So don't worry.
But, one problem is this old employer made me sign the Employee Agreement document when i was going for my visa stamping. He is using that Agreement and using it against me. And also in the offer letter which he gave me he said he will revise or increase my pay every 6 months but never did that and he didn't gave any medical benifits also.
Thanks,
Srikanth
Srikanth,
It all depends on the language in the Agreement that you signed. More over in some state doesn't consider these kind of agreements.
Tell him that you are going to complain to DOL if he threatens you. Even though he sues you, as the reason behind your H1 transfer is not getting paid in time, there are very good chances getting final verdict in your favor.
So don't worry.
more...
pictures James Durbin Wikipedia: James
needhelp!
06-16 01:23 PM
Thank you rsdang..
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Folks please call � Lobbying/Calling people is the way things get done in US� Get over your shyness. Just Do it.
I was shy at first and was uncomfortable calling � after the first 2-3 calls I was calling like a pro� its takes half an hour at most�
Please Please Please pick up that phone and call�
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Folks please call � Lobbying/Calling people is the way things get done in US� Get over your shyness. Just Do it.
I was shy at first and was uncomfortable calling � after the first 2-3 calls I was calling like a pro� its takes half an hour at most�
Please Please Please pick up that phone and call�
dresses James Durbin has made it
Raju
02-22 06:06 PM
Hello everyone,
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
Why don't we sell some advertising space on immigrationvoice.org
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
Why don't we sell some advertising space on immigrationvoice.org
more...
makeup TOP 24: James Durbin, 22,
sr123
02-15 10:43 AM
There are 2 kinds of posts...(1) Which add value to the forum. Threads started for 401K, selecting a lawyer etc add value since they attract new members. (2) The second kind of posts are the ones initiated by people who want to ask questions. This questions tend to be serving individuals.
I think we should not restrict the first type of posts. There could some kind of charge on the second kind. One suggestion which may work is as follows
1. Only paying members can initiate threads(or may be allow the first few for free ). Exceptions can be permitted by admins who can review if a post could be useful.
2. Anyone can post answers to existing threads.
By the way I am not sure of the technical aspect of the website operations. So please bear with me if my post reflects the same.
I think we should not restrict the first type of posts. There could some kind of charge on the second kind. One suggestion which may work is as follows
1. Only paying members can initiate threads(or may be allow the first few for free ). Exceptions can be permitted by admins who can review if a post could be useful.
2. Anyone can post answers to existing threads.
By the way I am not sure of the technical aspect of the website operations. So please bear with me if my post reflects the same.
girlfriend James Durbin delivered another
pappu
02-11 10:26 AM
..
Legislation is being prepared by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would make it easier to get permanent residency or Green Cards for advance degree graduates. Lofgren, who represents Silicon Valley, has not introduced her proposal, but she is a veteran of immigration issues.
Previous efforts by Lofgren have attempted to make it easier for foreign students who earn advance degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the so-called STEM degrees, to remain in the U.S. Her latest proposal is broader.
Among the things Lofgren may seek to accomplish in this bill is to create a new Green Card category for advanced degree graduates with STEM degrees, and to enable employers to file immigrant petitions for any of these students, eliminating the need for an H-1B visa for these employers. Out of the 85,000 H-1B visas allowed each year, 20,000 are set aside for STEM graduates.
U.S. Rep Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) introduced something similar last month. But Lofgren's proposal may go further by seeking protections for U.S. workers by barring their displacement by an H-1B worker, a move that may be aimed at firms that primarily deliver offshore services.
Link (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9208961/Top_H_1B_visa_user_of_2010_An_Indian_firm)
Looks like the news is out on this in media.
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Legislation is being prepared by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would make it easier to get permanent residency or Green Cards for advance degree graduates. Lofgren, who represents Silicon Valley, has not introduced her proposal, but she is a veteran of immigration issues.
Previous efforts by Lofgren have attempted to make it easier for foreign students who earn advance degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the so-called STEM degrees, to remain in the U.S. Her latest proposal is broader.
Among the things Lofgren may seek to accomplish in this bill is to create a new Green Card category for advanced degree graduates with STEM degrees, and to enable employers to file immigrant petitions for any of these students, eliminating the need for an H-1B visa for these employers. Out of the 85,000 H-1B visas allowed each year, 20,000 are set aside for STEM graduates.
U.S. Rep Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) introduced something similar last month. But Lofgren's proposal may go further by seeking protections for U.S. workers by barring their displacement by an H-1B worker, a move that may be aimed at firms that primarily deliver offshore services.
Link (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9208961/Top_H_1B_visa_user_of_2010_An_Indian_firm)
Looks like the news is out on this in media.
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
hairstyles Idol Reject James Durbin
chanduv23
04-08 04:24 PM
We are IV. I believe that is what chandu meant. Core is just a group of people who incidentally reserved the domain name and configured joomla.
Literally anyone is IV. IV is you and me. We are all collectively IV.
A lot of us have done media interviews in past. Some brought in media contacts, some gave media interviews .... so if you are interested, why don't YOU represent IV and contact media personnel.
Literally anyone is IV. IV is you and me. We are all collectively IV.
A lot of us have done media interviews in past. Some brought in media contacts, some gave media interviews .... so if you are interested, why don't YOU represent IV and contact media personnel.
fromnaija
07-20 04:59 PM
I'll be checking the source of this. I'll be glad if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks.
However, this does not apply to the first poster (juz4forums). But it does answer the question of the second poster(immiguy).
Suject to certain conditions, children born abroad to permanent resident mothers are permanent residents. The requirements are that such a child must be brought to the U.S. on the mother's first return trip, and this trip must occur before the child is two years of age. I think, the child in this situation does not need a visa. Please check with your lawyer.
The necessary paperwork is processed at the port of entry, based on the mother's permanent resident status and birth certificate for the child.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
However, this does not apply to the first poster (juz4forums). But it does answer the question of the second poster(immiguy).
Suject to certain conditions, children born abroad to permanent resident mothers are permanent residents. The requirements are that such a child must be brought to the U.S. on the mother's first return trip, and this trip must occur before the child is two years of age. I think, the child in this situation does not need a visa. Please check with your lawyer.
The necessary paperwork is processed at the port of entry, based on the mother's permanent resident status and birth certificate for the child.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
vishwak
08-03 08:46 AM
My EAD details
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
It does looks confusion.
I believe its...just SR denied not case. Hope for the best.
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
It does looks confusion.
I believe its...just SR denied not case. Hope for the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment