naresh515
09-24 01:22 PM
Hi All,
Is there anyone planning to get H1-B/any visa stamping in Matamoras, Mexico in the next couple months? (I'm from dallas)
Is there anyone who already went for stamping in matamoras recently....
Please share your thoughts...
I'm planning to get my H1-B renewal stamping next month...
Thanks for all your replies in advance!!!
Thanks,
Raghu.
Is there anyone planning to get H1-B/any visa stamping in Matamoras, Mexico in the next couple months? (I'm from dallas)
Is there anyone who already went for stamping in matamoras recently....
Please share your thoughts...
I'm planning to get my H1-B renewal stamping next month...
Thanks for all your replies in advance!!!
Thanks,
Raghu.
wallpaper Toyota Hilux Vigo 4x4 Double
ameryki
02-27 02:32 PM
You mention receipt number starting with LIN ,I have a receipt number starting with SRC . Anyone know the difference ,if there is one ?
thanks
Maristella61 thanks for hijacking my thread!...
Now back to my questions... I realize I am in good shape with things in place but will I need the receipt notice when applying for AP/ EAD renewal? My lawyer had asked me to send them money orders for the filing so I don't have any confirmation of the payments but can always print out the application status online. let me know.
thanks
Maristella61 thanks for hijacking my thread!...
Now back to my questions... I realize I am in good shape with things in place but will I need the receipt notice when applying for AP/ EAD renewal? My lawyer had asked me to send them money orders for the filing so I don't have any confirmation of the payments but can always print out the application status online. let me know.
mundram
04-20 12:03 PM
Recently, I was in the similar situation but with H4 dependents.
Here was the response from my lawyer:
"the I-94 card should reflect that date. What I would like them to do is go to their local port of entry (probably airport), to have the I-94 cards corrected. It does not need to be the same airport that they entered through."
The airport authorities easily updated the "until" date. However, they told me that the system recognizes the exit date based on the visa validity date. But safe to get it updated from your local airport.
Here was the response from my lawyer:
"the I-94 card should reflect that date. What I would like them to do is go to their local port of entry (probably airport), to have the I-94 cards corrected. It does not need to be the same airport that they entered through."
The airport authorities easily updated the "until" date. However, they told me that the system recognizes the exit date based on the visa validity date. But safe to get it updated from your local airport.
2011 Toyota Hilux Vigo Double cab
akred
03-26 07:52 PM
Yes. But as my wife found out, a lot of employers (small business) are willing to pay off the books or in kind (like free private school tuition).
more...
jonty_11
01-16 04:43 PM
Yes , I am planning to take the test too......
FinalGC
05-10 02:49 PM
ICICI cheats you on the conversion rate. Try simply money gram from walmart
more...
solaris27
02-24 12:04 PM
its depends ...
my CPA deducted below expenses
1) my and wife air ticket to india for visa stamping.
2) All visa fees
3) all hotel exp.
4) All attorney and USCIS fees .
but check with your CPA .
my CPA deducted below expenses
1) my and wife air ticket to india for visa stamping.
2) All visa fees
3) all hotel exp.
4) All attorney and USCIS fees .
but check with your CPA .
2010 2008 Toyota Hilux Vigo Single
rajuseattle
07-01 01:47 AM
I am also in a simlar situation except that the job location is same but job position going to be Sr. Programmer analyst for the same employer who is sponsoring my GC and for whom i am working for last 6 + yrs.
According to our company attorney and HR, i am eligible for promotion using the AC-21 and they are preparing my AC-21 package to USCIS.
In the AC-21 letter to USCIS it is clearly mentioned that i will be using AC-21 provision of the immigration law to accept the new position for the same employer. HR also verified that this is a natural progression for my job position.
Anyways i would suggest please talk to your HR and company attorney as they would know the best course of action for you. Remember in the immigration world even if you think u r into similar situation with other person, it may not be true in all cases.
According to our company attorney and HR, i am eligible for promotion using the AC-21 and they are preparing my AC-21 package to USCIS.
In the AC-21 letter to USCIS it is clearly mentioned that i will be using AC-21 provision of the immigration law to accept the new position for the same employer. HR also verified that this is a natural progression for my job position.
Anyways i would suggest please talk to your HR and company attorney as they would know the best course of action for you. Remember in the immigration world even if you think u r into similar situation with other person, it may not be true in all cases.
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
hair ต้องการขาย TOYOTA HILUX VIGO
pappu
08-10 04:09 PM
My GC is approved but still I want to continue my contribution (in steps of $20) for this good cause....However, I dont see any $20 contributions for last couple of weeks..Is it possible to start contribution of $20 for guy like me who have GC & wants to help for this cause?
Congrats on your GC and thanks for your support.
We took out the $20 per month option. We had that option for $20 per month for 6 months and only 200+ people signed up out of several thousand members who visit the site everyday. This happened when we announced that we may have to close this site and our work for lack of funds. After seeing lack of appreciation from members, running an organization and putting effort then seems useless to us in the core team. Why should we spend so much time and energy on something that only few people appreciate out of thousands in this community? Why should we run an organization where only a handful want to help out and everyone else is only interested in asking questions, complaining , picking up fights with others, criticizing IV?
Many people wrote to us saying $20 is too high and it should be reduced to $10 or even $1 per month and then everyone will contribute.
So pls tell us how we can survive with such amounts when others are spending hundreds or thousands and millions to prevent our bill?
Lack of funds affect our ability to go all out and get the work done. Lobbying is no charity. So unless each and every member feels to contribute from his/her heart contributions will not happen.
Previously people used to ask our achievements and say that they will contribute only after they see some results. We have given a few results till now and demonstrated commitment to the cause. If people are still not going to contribute, then such people will never contribute. We value everyone that has contributed and anyone who contributes in times of need.
Congrats on your GC and thanks for your support.
We took out the $20 per month option. We had that option for $20 per month for 6 months and only 200+ people signed up out of several thousand members who visit the site everyday. This happened when we announced that we may have to close this site and our work for lack of funds. After seeing lack of appreciation from members, running an organization and putting effort then seems useless to us in the core team. Why should we spend so much time and energy on something that only few people appreciate out of thousands in this community? Why should we run an organization where only a handful want to help out and everyone else is only interested in asking questions, complaining , picking up fights with others, criticizing IV?
Many people wrote to us saying $20 is too high and it should be reduced to $10 or even $1 per month and then everyone will contribute.
So pls tell us how we can survive with such amounts when others are spending hundreds or thousands and millions to prevent our bill?
Lack of funds affect our ability to go all out and get the work done. Lobbying is no charity. So unless each and every member feels to contribute from his/her heart contributions will not happen.
Previously people used to ask our achievements and say that they will contribute only after they see some results. We have given a few results till now and demonstrated commitment to the cause. If people are still not going to contribute, then such people will never contribute. We value everyone that has contributed and anyone who contributes in times of need.
more...
eb3_nepa
07-29 06:46 PM
CHC speaks only for illegals...
they fear any partial immigration reforms will harm their political constituents..namely the hispanic voter base.
They will never come onboard for legals..we have to fight our own battle.
So individual constituents on this forums can have personal views..
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
they fear any partial immigration reforms will harm their political constituents..namely the hispanic voter base.
They will never come onboard for legals..we have to fight our own battle.
So individual constituents on this forums can have personal views..
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
hot Toyota Hilux G Vigo 3.0 D4D
kevnss
03-26 02:33 PM
Any one has any updates/suggestions on my issue posted above?
more...
house 2010-Toyota-Hilux-Vigo-3.0G-02
sankap
07-06 06:05 PM
Why would you need an EVL from your new employer or inform the USCIS of your job change, in this case? AC21 does not require you to "file AC21" (whatever that means), contrary to what has been advised in this forum many times. Please Google "Yates memo;" see, e.g., http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/ac21-51205.pdf. Here are my attorney's comments in this regard:
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
tattoo Toyota Hilux Vigo 3.0 TD 2011
rongha_2000
10-02 11:07 AM
I have briefly searched the forums and could not find a related post hence starting a new thread. If the answer already is on any other post, please point me to it and delete this thread.
***********
Question: I am on H1 and, my wife and daughter are on H4. I have applied for EAD for both me and my wife and AP for all 3 of us. My question is "Do I need to maintain my H1 status so that my daughter can stay in US?" If I (and my wife too) switch to EAD, what status will my daughter be in? As I understand "Pending Adjustment" is not a status so how can my daughter stay in US legally if I switch to EAD.
Any response is highly appreciated.
***********
Question: I am on H1 and, my wife and daughter are on H4. I have applied for EAD for both me and my wife and AP for all 3 of us. My question is "Do I need to maintain my H1 status so that my daughter can stay in US?" If I (and my wife too) switch to EAD, what status will my daughter be in? As I understand "Pending Adjustment" is not a status so how can my daughter stay in US legally if I switch to EAD.
Any response is highly appreciated.
more...
pictures HILUX VIGO D4D - Double Cab
ItIsNotFunny
12-03 12:03 PM
Bump ^^^^
dresses Toyota Hilux Vigo 4x4 Pickup
eb3India
04-13 11:00 AM
Also, one should know we are not getting help from our group, I know many guys who are effected by GCs in my office in my neighbourhood, I can't even get them to make one call to senator office,
how do you expect some other organization to help us, when we can't help ourselves
how do you expect some other organization to help us, when we can't help ourselves
more...
makeup Toyota Hilux Vigo, left hand
vicks_don
12-14 12:38 PM
You can stay here as your H1 is pending but you should not work. Then you are still Legal. This happened to many students in 04' when H1 ran out unexpectedly quick. As long as you do not work and H1 is pending i think you are legal. That is what finalized in 04'. Correct me if I am wrong.
girlfriend 2010-Toyota-Hilux-Vigo-3.0G-03 - autocarblitz
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)
hairstyles Toyota Hilux Vigo 3.0G D4D
shivarajan
07-26 02:38 AM
I use remit2India.com directly and they have best exchange rates/offers, looks like hdfc money transfer also use them as gateway and give lesser exchange than going thro them directly. Not great customer service but best rates so far and really not so bad marketing offers sometimes.
so my ordering for best is (per my exp):
1. remit2india.com
2.hdfc quick remit online
3.icici online
4.western union
:D
so my ordering for best is (per my exp):
1. remit2india.com
2.hdfc quick remit online
3.icici online
4.western union
:D
bestin
10-09 01:19 PM
Please be careful giving such advises. The person in question was out-of-status because he never worked for company A, so it is not certain if he is in valid status at this point. I would not generalize saying he could file without any hassles. He should speak to a qualified attorney before doing that.Labour is approved.I140 is something more related to the employer.He is in status currently.As long as he applies everything soon (by chance he goes out of status.I mean his H1B transfer) he is safe as he can goto AOS.
Isn't
Isn't
amsgc
04-04 10:56 PM
Thanks for posting this link - it is very useful.
I had not seen an update from USCIS yet that explained clearly the severity of the backlog. Next time we do an interview/radio show etc., it may be a good idea to point to this press release by the USCIS. We often hear that some congressmen are not convinced that it takes more than 7 years to get a GC. Next time we do a letter campaign or meet with a congressmen, let us print this out and take it with us.
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
I had not seen an update from USCIS yet that explained clearly the severity of the backlog. Next time we do an interview/radio show etc., it may be a good idea to point to this press release by the USCIS. We often hear that some congressmen are not convinced that it takes more than 7 years to get a GC. Next time we do a letter campaign or meet with a congressmen, let us print this out and take it with us.
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
No comments:
Post a Comment