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.
wallpaper In 2010 short hair is
acepb
04-16 12:06 PM
...on your news...and thanks for your continued commitment to IV!
gcseeker2002
08-14 02:24 PM
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.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
2011 Prom Hairstyles For Long Hair
texanmom
09-17 01:56 PM
spoly-
I am sorry that your calls were not returned. I am one of the state chapter leaders, and I am working remote supporting the core team.
To tell you the truth, I know it is crazy at the Situation room. Everyone is very busy trying to keep up with 134 appointments we have sceduled today and also training all the folks that are coming in for these meetings. Everything except the most important tasks are falling through the cracks since the volunteers are overloaded.
Please PM me, I am sure we could use your talent.
Best regards,
- texanmom
I am sorry that your calls were not returned. I am one of the state chapter leaders, and I am working remote supporting the core team.
To tell you the truth, I know it is crazy at the Situation room. Everyone is very busy trying to keep up with 134 appointments we have sceduled today and also training all the folks that are coming in for these meetings. Everything except the most important tasks are falling through the cracks since the volunteers are overloaded.
Please PM me, I am sure we could use your talent.
Best regards,
- texanmom
more...
yabadaba
07-14 08:35 AM
this probably the best info out there. There is industry pressure, bi partisan support, approval from the senate. just a matter of time.
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
more...
anilsal
01-08 05:15 PM
the latest passport information once you got it..
2010 Trendy hair styles for long
gsc999
02-14 12:17 AM
IV' ans of Southern California,
We need your help in making the Admin Fixes Campaign Successful. We are organizing a Southern California IV Meetup and Letter Signing Event this Weekend. We are targeting to get a 1000 letters signed and sent to the White House from our group. We need volunteers to print letter templates, get envelopes/stamps and most importantly bring family, friends and colleagues to this event.
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
We need your help in making the Admin Fixes Campaign Successful. We are organizing a Southern California IV Meetup and Letter Signing Event this Weekend. We are targeting to get a 1000 letters signed and sent to the White House from our group. We need volunteers to print letter templates, get envelopes/stamps and most importantly bring family, friends and colleagues to this event.
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
more...
suresh.emails
01-23 11:34 AM
Well,
The following is the process to schedule parents visiting visa interview online (assuming both Mother and Father are above 45 years old)
1. Pay HDFC Visa fee for $131. If you have paid visa fee on or before December 31, 2007, then take a Demand Draft for $31 (eqv in INR) and present the same during the interview process.
2. Wait for 2 days to activate the bar code.
3. Fill the D-156 and D-157 forms online thru VFS website and wait for dates to show up. Remember such filled application will be valid for 7 days and meanwhile , if interview dates show up, then one can schedule interview.
4. The BEST TIME FOR interview dates check up is early morning 5 AM EST thru 7:30 AM EST. ( I did little research during my parents interview schedule).
5. Filling the D-156 and D-157 online does not mean that, they will be automatically submitted to US consulate. You have to take print out D-156 back to back and D-157 on single page. Then you sign and date the form (if you have filled it on behalf of your parents). Send the forms to parents. They also need to sign the forms.
6. Remember, one have to write applicant names in their NATIVE language (ex: Telugu/Tamil/Kannada etc..,) on 3'rd column of D-157 form.
7. Send notarized affidavit for support I-134 form.
8. All supporting documents
9. If your current H1-B visa is expired. then send your Receipt Notice/H1-B extension approved notice as a proof of your Current STATUS at USA.
10. If you have valid H1-B visa stamping, then send the same along with H1-B I-797 approval notice.
11. If you are on EAD/GC, send your copied of EAD/GC.
12. In case, if you are sponsoring your in-laws. Then send your suppose Date of Birth certificate, passport copies, marriage certificate along with your documents.
13. Educate your parents with all possible questions/answers they may face during the interview.
14. Advice your parents not to lie during the interview process. ask them to answer frankly.
Let me know if you need more information for visiting visa. I can/may answer all possible questions.
P.S: My parents got their visiting visa stamped during the second attempt.
The following is the process to schedule parents visiting visa interview online (assuming both Mother and Father are above 45 years old)
1. Pay HDFC Visa fee for $131. If you have paid visa fee on or before December 31, 2007, then take a Demand Draft for $31 (eqv in INR) and present the same during the interview process.
2. Wait for 2 days to activate the bar code.
3. Fill the D-156 and D-157 forms online thru VFS website and wait for dates to show up. Remember such filled application will be valid for 7 days and meanwhile , if interview dates show up, then one can schedule interview.
4. The BEST TIME FOR interview dates check up is early morning 5 AM EST thru 7:30 AM EST. ( I did little research during my parents interview schedule).
5. Filling the D-156 and D-157 online does not mean that, they will be automatically submitted to US consulate. You have to take print out D-156 back to back and D-157 on single page. Then you sign and date the form (if you have filled it on behalf of your parents). Send the forms to parents. They also need to sign the forms.
6. Remember, one have to write applicant names in their NATIVE language (ex: Telugu/Tamil/Kannada etc..,) on 3'rd column of D-157 form.
7. Send notarized affidavit for support I-134 form.
8. All supporting documents
9. If your current H1-B visa is expired. then send your Receipt Notice/H1-B extension approved notice as a proof of your Current STATUS at USA.
10. If you have valid H1-B visa stamping, then send the same along with H1-B I-797 approval notice.
11. If you are on EAD/GC, send your copied of EAD/GC.
12. In case, if you are sponsoring your in-laws. Then send your suppose Date of Birth certificate, passport copies, marriage certificate along with your documents.
13. Educate your parents with all possible questions/answers they may face during the interview.
14. Advice your parents not to lie during the interview process. ask them to answer frankly.
Let me know if you need more information for visiting visa. I can/may answer all possible questions.
P.S: My parents got their visiting visa stamped during the second attempt.
hair Prom Hairstyles For Long Hair
ruchigup
08-22 03:56 PM
Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP - San Francisco - just Google them....you should be able to find contact information. They've treated me wonderfully!!
"Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP" are doing my H1-B transfer and I had a good experience dealing with them so far (though brief).
Only thing is for GC I am little reluctant due to their PERM cases being the traget of audit
"Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP" are doing my H1-B transfer and I had a good experience dealing with them so far (though brief).
Only thing is for GC I am little reluctant due to their PERM cases being the traget of audit
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)
hot Red Hairstyles - Hot and
shan74
01-12 05:57 PM
bhanurpiya i sent u a pm. please let me know.
thanks
thanks
more...
house Trendy Hairstyles for 2011
JunRN
05-05 10:09 AM
To force USCIS to adjudicate i-140 within 180 days or 6 months, if concurrent filing is removed, we may comment to include a clause that says "If i-140 is pending for more than 180 days and PD is current, i-485 may be filed.
Better yet, if they will include filing of i-485 even if PD is not current.
The silverlining if they remove concurrent filing is that there will be pressure to adjudicate i-140 within reasonable time or better yet, a hard target of 6 months.
Better yet, if they will include filing of i-485 even if PD is not current.
The silverlining if they remove concurrent filing is that there will be pressure to adjudicate i-140 within reasonable time or better yet, a hard target of 6 months.
tattoo Owen Wilson Hairstyles -Cool
gc_chahiye
02-10 06:24 PM
Weigh in with % raise and take decision. If its around 15%-20% raise with
good benefits etc then move..
cheers
Iad
the spouse is the primary applicant. The OP is dependent/secondary applicant
OP can take even a 3000% raise, change jobs to a completely unrelated field, do whatever he/she wants to do, whenever he/she wants to.
good benefits etc then move..
cheers
Iad
the spouse is the primary applicant. The OP is dependent/secondary applicant
OP can take even a 3000% raise, change jobs to a completely unrelated field, do whatever he/she wants to do, whenever he/she wants to.
more...
pictures trendy hairstyles for long
pappu
04-16 10:46 AM
Admins,
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
We get a lot of people with Alabama as the state. This is because it is the first state in the dropdown. People do not even bother to put their correct state when they create a free membership account. If we do not get correct email address we cannot communicate with you via emails. We also need your name and phone number so that we can call you. There have been times, when core team has called members to tell them about something important. We will sometimes point out on the forum if any poster has not given us full information. It may cause embarresment to some members who are frequently posting on the forums annonymously.
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
We get a lot of people with Alabama as the state. This is because it is the first state in the dropdown. People do not even bother to put their correct state when they create a free membership account. If we do not get correct email address we cannot communicate with you via emails. We also need your name and phone number so that we can call you. There have been times, when core team has called members to tell them about something important. We will sometimes point out on the forum if any poster has not given us full information. It may cause embarresment to some members who are frequently posting on the forums annonymously.
dresses Generally, lengthy hair can be
LostInGCProcess
09-18 04:24 PM
my I-140 is pending for than 600 days as well in addition to my pending I-485.
while using EAD with my current GC applying employer(lets say not
getting paid as in this economy its hard to find corp to corp jobs), can I
work another job full time using EAD?
It would be risky to move to another company before your I-140 is approved.
If you start using your EAD, you no longer will be in H status. You would be in AOS pending status.
while using EAD with my current GC applying employer(lets say not
getting paid as in this economy its hard to find corp to corp jobs), can I
work another job full time using EAD?
It would be risky to move to another company before your I-140 is approved.
If you start using your EAD, you no longer will be in H status. You would be in AOS pending status.
more...
makeup trendy short hairstyle. trendy
sumansk
07-16 06:45 PM
I dont think murthy is the right place to search for updates..Murthy is lacking far behind others in this times of crisis.I am not sure what are their fees/charges...:p
girlfriend Trendy Hair Cuts
quizzer
02-25 11:38 PM
I would like to ask the same question but a bit more specific.
For someone who is an MBA (Finance) with 7-8 yrs of Financial and HR benefits experience who wants to move to IT or IT related field what would you advice would be the best field to move to or best certification to take ?
Thanks
SAP or Oracle Financials and HRMS
I would suggest you to go with Oracle Apps since they are strong in these 2 domains.
For someone who is an MBA (Finance) with 7-8 yrs of Financial and HR benefits experience who wants to move to IT or IT related field what would you advice would be the best field to move to or best certification to take ?
Thanks
SAP or Oracle Financials and HRMS
I would suggest you to go with Oracle Apps since they are strong in these 2 domains.
hairstyles 2011 Women Trendy
shana04
08-30 01:32 AM
Hi frnds,
I used to work for a company A in california.. Boss is kind of using very bad language constantly and torchers almost everyday. Is there any1 who can help me out or has similar situations. Is there any1 that i can file a complain. Since he knew that I am on H1B and international student he was continuously abusing. any help would appreciated.
Tanx.
change employer and if he has not paid then complain him to DOL.
I used to work for a company A in california.. Boss is kind of using very bad language constantly and torchers almost everyday. Is there any1 who can help me out or has similar situations. Is there any1 that i can file a complain. Since he knew that I am on H1B and international student he was continuously abusing. any help would appreciated.
Tanx.
change employer and if he has not paid then complain him to DOL.
amsgc
04-04 02:10 PM
Signin,
You need to give more information about what whether your wife was able to file I-485 for your wife. If you are from a retrogressed country, then your wife was probably not able to file to adjust status. In that case, she is can change from H4 to F1. After the approval, her status is not dependent on yours, and you can start using EAD.
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
You need to give more information about what whether your wife was able to file I-485 for your wife. If you are from a retrogressed country, then your wife was probably not able to file to adjust status. In that case, she is can change from H4 to F1. After the approval, her status is not dependent on yours, and you can start using EAD.
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
ebizash
11-10 04:39 PM
Finished the survey
No comments:
Post a Comment