tonyHK12
01-21 11:35 AM
I had a doctor's appointment today and my doc asked if I had read this article: Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html) and if I agreed with the author (coming from an asian/indian family)
What do you think?
This is a Good one, defenitely a useful point:
"Not allowed to not be.... the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama"
"almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun."
What do you think?
This is a Good one, defenitely a useful point:
"Not allowed to not be.... the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama"
"almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun."
desi3933
06-25 02:18 PM
I agree. The argument that the AOS applicant doesn't need to have a job now is very aggressive and should only be used if absolutely necessary. If there is any chance of finding a new job soon, the first step would be to ask for more time to respond to the RFE.
Thanks Elaine.
My understanding is that, from legal point of view, the conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending. If there is a time when Job offer, that is same/similar to I-140 petition, is not available then the pending I-485 application can be denied just on this basis alone.
Could you please share your views on this.
.
Thanks Elaine.
My understanding is that, from legal point of view, the conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending. If there is a time when Job offer, that is same/similar to I-140 petition, is not available then the pending I-485 application can be denied just on this basis alone.
Could you please share your views on this.
.
chanduv23
04-13 10:43 AM
You are very correct. For them immigration issue means, family based greencard system. They will be happy if EB greencard is eliminated so that all greencards are given to their families.
My friend contacted such organization and they said that they will help us by putting our issue on their website. For that I should ask IV to contribute to their cause. They refused to contribute anything or do anything for IV. They said that by putting IV's name on their site, they are doing us a favor by enhancing our profile and that is a big help. I am now repulsed by such ABCDs.
This is so much in contrast to hispanic orgs or Irish orgs or jewish orgs who care for their people.
yes, our community is divided. The main reason is, all these years, majority people used short cuts methods or got lucky or effortlessly immigrated and jumped to the other side. Things were not so tough for them as compared to us and we are competitive. They hate us for being competitive so they influence the law makers and the results is obvious EB green card is 10% and FB system is bringing in 60%. They take advantage of the the H1b system to live on us and influence the policies making it tougher.
We are better off not seeking their help, but if people think otherwise, go for it. A lot of these organizations are formed for convinience and self interest and they really do not have any interest in the community as a whole.
Take example of ATA and TANA. ATA is called American telugu Association and TANA is called Telugu association of North America. They say ATA is for Reddys and TANA is for Khammas.
Look at the Gujjus. They are strongly bound their community only. Look at all the Tamil sangams, Kannada Sangams, ......
I am not blaming them, but just saying that their agendas are not ours. We may be better off not spending time with these people.
My friend contacted such organization and they said that they will help us by putting our issue on their website. For that I should ask IV to contribute to their cause. They refused to contribute anything or do anything for IV. They said that by putting IV's name on their site, they are doing us a favor by enhancing our profile and that is a big help. I am now repulsed by such ABCDs.
This is so much in contrast to hispanic orgs or Irish orgs or jewish orgs who care for their people.
yes, our community is divided. The main reason is, all these years, majority people used short cuts methods or got lucky or effortlessly immigrated and jumped to the other side. Things were not so tough for them as compared to us and we are competitive. They hate us for being competitive so they influence the law makers and the results is obvious EB green card is 10% and FB system is bringing in 60%. They take advantage of the the H1b system to live on us and influence the policies making it tougher.
We are better off not seeking their help, but if people think otherwise, go for it. A lot of these organizations are formed for convinience and self interest and they really do not have any interest in the community as a whole.
Take example of ATA and TANA. ATA is called American telugu Association and TANA is called Telugu association of North America. They say ATA is for Reddys and TANA is for Khammas.
Look at the Gujjus. They are strongly bound their community only. Look at all the Tamil sangams, Kannada Sangams, ......
I am not blaming them, but just saying that their agendas are not ours. We may be better off not spending time with these people.
Madhuri
04-09 11:30 AM
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
more...
Hermione
09-27 11:09 AM
Is there anyway we can help the family featured in this thread? Like helping them with funds to hire a good lawyer or something on those lines? Reading all the threads, I am somehow thinking of going for the Indian dream now (Yes, I have the Indian citizenship)!!! 6 years and my wife still does not know if she can live in this country or not!!!
Hold your hourses until you hear the true story of this family. As I said, I tried to find their court decision online (court decisions are public documents), and it was not there. It means that they gave assumed names, also it probably means that they do not want people to read their court documents. I personally have seen asylum cases, and let me tell you, some of them are so full of lies, you would not belive your eyes (I have seen a guy who claimed his wife was beaten and denied medical services - he has never been even married!). I think their story goes like this - they came on tourist visas to visit her family, after that they stayed illegally for 2-3 years saving money to pay the lawyers, after that they paid a crooked attorney to buy some fake "proof" that they were persecuted and applied for assylum. Their application went to court, where judge suspected something was fishy. He probably asked for additional proof or obtained evidence that their documents were fake, and denied the case. That's kind of typical story for a denied asylum, and I would be very-very careful in trying to help them personally. If they get some relieve as a result of a broader legislation, like 245(i), I would not mind it at all (they will, because they have a pending I-130), but helping them while not helping people who decided not to go out with swinging lies and just stayed illegally... I would stay away from it.
The article itself is pretty good, though.
Hold your hourses until you hear the true story of this family. As I said, I tried to find their court decision online (court decisions are public documents), and it was not there. It means that they gave assumed names, also it probably means that they do not want people to read their court documents. I personally have seen asylum cases, and let me tell you, some of them are so full of lies, you would not belive your eyes (I have seen a guy who claimed his wife was beaten and denied medical services - he has never been even married!). I think their story goes like this - they came on tourist visas to visit her family, after that they stayed illegally for 2-3 years saving money to pay the lawyers, after that they paid a crooked attorney to buy some fake "proof" that they were persecuted and applied for assylum. Their application went to court, where judge suspected something was fishy. He probably asked for additional proof or obtained evidence that their documents were fake, and denied the case. That's kind of typical story for a denied asylum, and I would be very-very careful in trying to help them personally. If they get some relieve as a result of a broader legislation, like 245(i), I would not mind it at all (they will, because they have a pending I-130), but helping them while not helping people who decided not to go out with swinging lies and just stayed illegally... I would stay away from it.
The article itself is pretty good, though.
vine93
08-06 09:19 PM
Please sit together and talk.
more...
skagitswimmer
June 6th, 2005, 08:35 AM
Would the 20D or D1MkII have greater tolerances i.e. wider range algorithms in the camera?
sanjay02
08-22 03:07 PM
Doesnt make sense to pay $2500 for retaining the lawyer, they are trying to squeeze maximum out of you. If you are changing employer ask if the new company has an immigration lawyer and you can have him for your services. If they dont have any one you can engage services of your own immigration lawyer and have the new lawyer sign the G-28 form. Also please post the name of law firm and your employer so that others can be cautious.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
more...
perm2gc
08-26 01:19 AM
Dude it is pretty clear you dont belong here. If you joined a body-shop that replaced americans with cheap bodies then your employer violated the law and you were a willing accomplice. You are no better than an illegal alien. No wonder you are so scared of being replaced by yet another cheap body ! IV does not represent people like you.
Now get the hell out of here.well said dude
Now get the hell out of here.well said dude
Appu
04-17 04:01 PM
Sign this petition on Sen Kennedy's website in support of immigration reform:
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
It may help...
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
It may help...
more...
luckylavs
05-15 12:30 PM
Gurus: Any idea if there will be visa movement for IN in the near future...
forever_waiting
01-06 02:21 PM
It has happened several times in the past when a members thought a certain bill had a lot of scope...then started advocating on the forums for IV to take up the cause and start lobbying for it...and if it didnt work out or no one showed interest, IV core team ended up receiving brickbats that they never put in the neccessary efforts. This is just a fact.
The advocacy and lobbying for any bill doesnt follow the "top-down" but the "bottom-up" approach. IV can coordnate lobbying and advocacy at the national level but requires our members across the country to meet with their lawmakers to get specific responses on whether they will support that bill.
IV usually lobbies or works on bills that seem to have some traction in Congress. If members are very sure that there are other bills that should be focussed on - they should gather together the numbers (i.e. members who think this will help), meet with lawmakers in their districts - try to find co-sponsors for the bills. Then, if truly a momentum exists - the IV core team can step in and help with additional lobbying.
I have met 3 congressmen in my area - one is an anti-immig and the other two fully support EB legislation but at this point are judging the climate in the new Congress.
As another member stated IV is "me and you". And the bottomline is asking IV to take up a cause is not the right approach. Advocacy and the momentum has to be started by the members.
The advocacy and lobbying for any bill doesnt follow the "top-down" but the "bottom-up" approach. IV can coordnate lobbying and advocacy at the national level but requires our members across the country to meet with their lawmakers to get specific responses on whether they will support that bill.
IV usually lobbies or works on bills that seem to have some traction in Congress. If members are very sure that there are other bills that should be focussed on - they should gather together the numbers (i.e. members who think this will help), meet with lawmakers in their districts - try to find co-sponsors for the bills. Then, if truly a momentum exists - the IV core team can step in and help with additional lobbying.
I have met 3 congressmen in my area - one is an anti-immig and the other two fully support EB legislation but at this point are judging the climate in the new Congress.
As another member stated IV is "me and you". And the bottomline is asking IV to take up a cause is not the right approach. Advocacy and the momentum has to be started by the members.
more...
pappu
08-20 05:08 PM
Thank you everyone for taking appointments. We are getting good feedback from the recent visits. Please continue this effort.
txh1b
08-06 07:36 PM
hi,
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
If you are on a H4, you can be taken out of the pending 485 if you go through a divorce.
1. Possibly can with a divorce.
2. #1, can be considered automatically revoked if divorced.
3. No
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
If you are on a H4, you can be taken out of the pending 485 if you go through a divorce.
1. Possibly can with a divorce.
2. #1, can be considered automatically revoked if divorced.
3. No
more...
ajcates
11-24 11:28 AM
I want the kawoosh one to win mainly because of the cool name.
senthil1
09-17 01:47 AM
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Thanks to everyone who signed the petition.
I believe in freedom of speech but Dobbs is using the CNN platform to spew hate. A legitimate debate is fine but hate speech is not ok.
I used to believe that ignore him was the best way to deal with him but after seeing some of the so called Tax parties, I am starting to think that ignoring him does not work.
Please also post this to other web forums, facebook, twitter and send emails to your friends and colleagues asking them to sign the petition.
- JK
Thanks to everyone who signed the petition.
I believe in freedom of speech but Dobbs is using the CNN platform to spew hate. A legitimate debate is fine but hate speech is not ok.
I used to believe that ignore him was the best way to deal with him but after seeing some of the so called Tax parties, I am starting to think that ignoring him does not work.
Please also post this to other web forums, facebook, twitter and send emails to your friends and colleagues asking them to sign the petition.
- JK
more...
newuser
10-06 04:06 PM
I was recently audited by Someone from Dept of Homeland Security regarding my H1-B visa status.He asked several questions regarding my position,job duties,pay,work hrs
How long I was associated with my current company, What was my previous job and job duties,How long I am in US etc.
I couldn't provide him the proof of the pay as I didn't had the pay stub to show him at that moment.
I asked him is this just rutine procedure ?He said this is recently started process to check H1B fraud.
Does any one else had same experience?
Unless you fill your profile, nobody will trust you. Anti's are trying to get some negative comments and feed their agenda
How long I was associated with my current company, What was my previous job and job duties,How long I am in US etc.
I couldn't provide him the proof of the pay as I didn't had the pay stub to show him at that moment.
I asked him is this just rutine procedure ?He said this is recently started process to check H1B fraud.
Does any one else had same experience?
Unless you fill your profile, nobody will trust you. Anti's are trying to get some negative comments and feed their agenda
Ram_C
09-25 04:46 PM
I am a Master's student and had applied for H1B through a consultant under master quota 2007. I was devastated when the consultant told me today that my H1B was not approved. When i checked online with my WAC no, as expected it said that a decision was mailed to the employer which in most cases means H1B denied.
I have OPT left until dec 07. I haven't yet found a job while on OPT but have been applying for jobs rigorously. I was really banking on the H1B visa for getting a job and then transferring it over to whoever hires me.
With my H1B not approved, I am totally clueless now. Please advice if my H1B application can be reconsidered/re-appealed/ resubmitted. Any other options/suggestions welcome.
sorry to hear about your H1, but you are not at all in bad situation.
here is what I would do if I were you.
1. extend your F1 visa for Spring 08, so that you have a safety net.
2. appeal your H1 Denial (if there is a chance)
I have OPT left until dec 07. I haven't yet found a job while on OPT but have been applying for jobs rigorously. I was really banking on the H1B visa for getting a job and then transferring it over to whoever hires me.
With my H1B not approved, I am totally clueless now. Please advice if my H1B application can be reconsidered/re-appealed/ resubmitted. Any other options/suggestions welcome.
sorry to hear about your H1, but you are not at all in bad situation.
here is what I would do if I were you.
1. extend your F1 visa for Spring 08, so that you have a safety net.
2. appeal your H1 Denial (if there is a chance)
pointlesswait
11-26 02:50 PM
there was nothing to be so touchy in those two lines of mine!
houston2005
08-21 11:26 AM
It is my turn to receive the "Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident" today. My depenedents are yet to receive this mail. This forum, Immigration-law, Immigration portal by Rajiv Khanna and many other immigration lawyers' websites like Murthy's etc were very useful to understand the immigration laws.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 08-30-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
Congrats.
Which service center did you applied to. I have similar PD (8/22/05) and EB2 NIW at TSC.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 08-30-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
Congrats.
Which service center did you applied to. I have similar PD (8/22/05) and EB2 NIW at TSC.
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment