mugwump
03-13 10:17 AM
I apologize in advance if people think my post is inappropriate for this thread, but I couldn�t find the older thread I was looking for.
I was wondering what happened with the discussion about the potential impacts of Canadian Immigration on US GC process. I had read before that UCSIC might consider it as an abandonment of the 485 application.
I had applied for canadian immig as a back up and got a medical request form from Canadian Consul. I am planning to go ahead with it. Was hoping to find out if people have been landing in Canada in this post 485 filing world??
Responses will be appreciated.
I was wondering what happened with the discussion about the potential impacts of Canadian Immigration on US GC process. I had read before that UCSIC might consider it as an abandonment of the 485 application.
I had applied for canadian immig as a back up and got a medical request form from Canadian Consul. I am planning to go ahead with it. Was hoping to find out if people have been landing in Canada in this post 485 filing world??
Responses will be appreciated.
wallpaper Girly Tattoo Tips - Cute Ankle
chanduv23
03-14 12:07 PM
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office�s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
digital2k
08-06 02:20 PM
*
2011 girly tattoos
meridiani.planum
04-03 05:49 PM
inline...
Hi All,
I am thinking of looking for other job options. I want to know if you any one of you have changed jobs on EAD and your experience with the whole issue.
I changed jobs on EAD
1. Did you find have any issues when getting 485 approved.
My PD is still 5 years or so away from being current. :)
2. Did you file AC21.
No. But hired same lawyer who had filed the initial case. If current employer revokes I-140 (through same lawyer) might send AC-21 letter.
3. Does the job responsibility has to meet 100% word by word.
In my case its about 80% the same. In general its better if its as close as possible.
4. Has any one you applied for EAD extension on your own.
Not done yet, but will do this year. Its a simple enough form
5. Has any one got an RFE after changing the Job on EAD and submitting AC21. if so what kind of questions do they ask.
have been looking at immigrationportal.com for older-timers experience with AC-21 and no one that I know of has go an RFE wrt proving new job is similar to old one.
Hi All,
I am thinking of looking for other job options. I want to know if you any one of you have changed jobs on EAD and your experience with the whole issue.
I changed jobs on EAD
1. Did you find have any issues when getting 485 approved.
My PD is still 5 years or so away from being current. :)
2. Did you file AC21.
No. But hired same lawyer who had filed the initial case. If current employer revokes I-140 (through same lawyer) might send AC-21 letter.
3. Does the job responsibility has to meet 100% word by word.
In my case its about 80% the same. In general its better if its as close as possible.
4. Has any one you applied for EAD extension on your own.
Not done yet, but will do this year. Its a simple enough form
5. Has any one got an RFE after changing the Job on EAD and submitting AC21. if so what kind of questions do they ask.
have been looking at immigrationportal.com for older-timers experience with AC-21 and no one that I know of has go an RFE wrt proving new job is similar to old one.
more...
rajeshalex
10-14 02:19 PM
Its better to take it from India. Check with ur travel agent.
Also note that pre existing conditions are not covered in most of the insurance plans.
Rajesh
Also note that pre existing conditions are not covered in most of the insurance plans.
Rajesh
Sheila Danzig
11-28 12:33 PM
Guys,
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
If the Eng degree is a 4 year program where you were granted advanced standing for the 3 year diploma you should be approved if it is properly handled by the attorney and the evaluation agency.
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
If the Eng degree is a 4 year program where you were granted advanced standing for the 3 year diploma you should be approved if it is properly handled by the attorney and the evaluation agency.
more...
nitkad
03-20 05:07 PM
Thanks, according to your reply, it seems it will be good if I leave the company before the I140 gets revoked. Also, what happens if it gets revoked after I leave the company?
2010 Girly tattoo design
panks
04-01 10:06 PM
Hello,
I need some urgent advise for potential steps after I-140 denial in my case. Please bear with me for some context.
In July'09 , I received a RFE on one of my two approved I-140.
This I-140 in question, was related to PERM labor and was approved in Jan'07 and had the PD of Oct' 06.
I had another I-140 pending approval at that time which was related to Pre-PERM/RIR labor and which had the PD of Oct' 04.
In July-Aug'07 window of 485 filing, I filed my 485 application referencing both I-140's ,
the reason we referenced non approved I-140 because it had an ealier PD.
The Oct'04 (earlier) PD I-140 was subsequently approved in Oct'07 just after few short months of 485 filing.
Both Labors/I-140s were in EB2. Now the RFE was due to 3 year degree , USCIS argued that they will not accept my NIIT diploma towards a 4 year degree althougth all other times they did. Anyway we responded to RFE , the lawyer made some arguments with an additional Educational evalaution, also agreeing to the possibility of shifting of I-140 from EB2 to EB3. Last week I received a very detailed response both in breadth and depth on that RFE, totalling ten pages and it concluded with the revocation of I-140 in question. They also denied the possibility of shifting to EB3 from EB2. We do have the option to appeal.
Today, I had a meeting with attorneys and my company's HR director on this and my attorney's recommendation was :
Because we have another I-140 in play , so we may be able to request USCIS to close the file on denied I-140 , at the same time also requesting to approve the 485 since the PD is currently current on that one. As far as I can understand this is a strategy of hope. Although hope is not a solution but the reason I see some merit towards this because both labors are completely different and their requirements are very different, so USCIS *should* not just deny the 485 based on just denied I-140. At worst they *should* give us a similar RFE and an opportunity to respond. Attorney also indicates that this 3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others.
The reason he says this is the better option because he is not confident that we will win the appeal. By reading the USCIS response on RFE , I am not sure of that either. If we file the appeal not caring what the result might be ..according to attorney and this I am not sure of is that when we file the appeal all processing will be **FROZEN** including 485 and would rob us of having a shot of approval via current PD's I-140.
The company has agreed to file a new Labor in EB3 as a backstop measure , however as you might understand I would be looking at least 10 years before I get GC with an EB3 2010 PD.
I came here in 2000 and it has already passed 10 years , however this is necessary so that I keep extending my H1.
I do have an extended H1 valild till 2012, however last year when I retuned to US from INDIA , I came on AP , so I think if in worst case my 485 gets denied in effect nullifying my EAD and AP. I would have to go out of country to revalidate my H1 and then come back.
My question to boarders here is :
a) What do you think about my options ? Is the Strategy of hope is the best one right now ?
b) Do really all processing gets frozen when we file an appeal on a denied I-140, specially in my case where I have two I-140s ?
c) Any other innovative ideas ?
-Thanks in advance.
Panks
I need some urgent advise for potential steps after I-140 denial in my case. Please bear with me for some context.
In July'09 , I received a RFE on one of my two approved I-140.
This I-140 in question, was related to PERM labor and was approved in Jan'07 and had the PD of Oct' 06.
I had another I-140 pending approval at that time which was related to Pre-PERM/RIR labor and which had the PD of Oct' 04.
In July-Aug'07 window of 485 filing, I filed my 485 application referencing both I-140's ,
the reason we referenced non approved I-140 because it had an ealier PD.
The Oct'04 (earlier) PD I-140 was subsequently approved in Oct'07 just after few short months of 485 filing.
Both Labors/I-140s were in EB2. Now the RFE was due to 3 year degree , USCIS argued that they will not accept my NIIT diploma towards a 4 year degree althougth all other times they did. Anyway we responded to RFE , the lawyer made some arguments with an additional Educational evalaution, also agreeing to the possibility of shifting of I-140 from EB2 to EB3. Last week I received a very detailed response both in breadth and depth on that RFE, totalling ten pages and it concluded with the revocation of I-140 in question. They also denied the possibility of shifting to EB3 from EB2. We do have the option to appeal.
Today, I had a meeting with attorneys and my company's HR director on this and my attorney's recommendation was :
Because we have another I-140 in play , so we may be able to request USCIS to close the file on denied I-140 , at the same time also requesting to approve the 485 since the PD is currently current on that one. As far as I can understand this is a strategy of hope. Although hope is not a solution but the reason I see some merit towards this because both labors are completely different and their requirements are very different, so USCIS *should* not just deny the 485 based on just denied I-140. At worst they *should* give us a similar RFE and an opportunity to respond. Attorney also indicates that this 3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others.
The reason he says this is the better option because he is not confident that we will win the appeal. By reading the USCIS response on RFE , I am not sure of that either. If we file the appeal not caring what the result might be ..according to attorney and this I am not sure of is that when we file the appeal all processing will be **FROZEN** including 485 and would rob us of having a shot of approval via current PD's I-140.
The company has agreed to file a new Labor in EB3 as a backstop measure , however as you might understand I would be looking at least 10 years before I get GC with an EB3 2010 PD.
I came here in 2000 and it has already passed 10 years , however this is necessary so that I keep extending my H1.
I do have an extended H1 valild till 2012, however last year when I retuned to US from INDIA , I came on AP , so I think if in worst case my 485 gets denied in effect nullifying my EAD and AP. I would have to go out of country to revalidate my H1 and then come back.
My question to boarders here is :
a) What do you think about my options ? Is the Strategy of hope is the best one right now ?
b) Do really all processing gets frozen when we file an appeal on a denied I-140, specially in my case where I have two I-140s ?
c) Any other innovative ideas ?
-Thanks in advance.
Panks
more...
english_august
09-11 12:29 AM
Bump!!
hair girly tattoos. meaning of star
SAMK
02-01 01:47 PM
Specifically how long were you in US before you started your CPT and in what capacity and where were you working ?
more...
gantilk
04-28 09:44 AM
when you say new fees, i assuem it is $340 . Correct ??
hot girly wrist tattoos. cute
walking_dude
10-25 02:14 PM
Full credits belong to CagedCactus who took the initiative to call the meet, chose the venue and time, brought snacks and coffee to the meet. And also to Bestin who drove all the way from Lansing to be with us.
It was nice to touch-base with some of the DC rally veterans and share our experience. And also to discover some neighbors :)
State chapter meets are a nice opportunity to meet people and build your network - which may prove very useful to you in the future. People who skip the meets don't know what they're missing.
Thanks again to you and everyone that attended.
Thanks Vivek (Walking_Dude) for taking effort and arranging this. Nice meeting all of you at Troy.
Interestingly, when we got introduced our self I found that couple of guys are from my apartment complex where I live for the past three years but never met them before. Another two guys from nearby apartments which are in walk able distance.
It is for sure that the State Chapters are good networking opportunity for everybody. Definitely it will help each of us one or the other way. Let us keep it going.
It was nice to touch-base with some of the DC rally veterans and share our experience. And also to discover some neighbors :)
State chapter meets are a nice opportunity to meet people and build your network - which may prove very useful to you in the future. People who skip the meets don't know what they're missing.
Thanks again to you and everyone that attended.
Thanks Vivek (Walking_Dude) for taking effort and arranging this. Nice meeting all of you at Troy.
Interestingly, when we got introduced our self I found that couple of guys are from my apartment complex where I live for the past three years but never met them before. Another two guys from nearby apartments which are in walk able distance.
It is for sure that the State Chapters are good networking opportunity for everybody. Definitely it will help each of us one or the other way. Let us keep it going.
more...
house Girly Tattoo Flash Page by
andy garcia
01-17 06:53 AM
That is all I did a couple of years ago.
I took the passport of my wife and that was it.
I took the passport of my wife and that was it.
tattoo Drawing for Girly Tattoo
gc_kaavaali
11-14 10:36 AM
After six months can i do H1 transfer with some other company...just want to be on H1 until i get GC (though it is not practical now because it takes years to get GC)...
more...
pictures Small Girly Tattoo
cram
10-09 07:06 PM
please anybody????????
dresses Girl Tattoos : Girly Tattoo
aau
08-08 10:34 AM
Sorry to hear about your friend's situation.
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
more...
makeup girly skull tattoos. skull
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuIvAgMbpdkI9afgE8XkachMALcfekugQG1aYV1Nji1osCrSbNSivbsjZ0GD948PCNVCesjKV-0Nk7OlisyNpbvXsQbmVcoj3FcPy3tntVg9ERSW7QY-Ro5R7fnQ1EVvDHdRvOO8tx8p0/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuIvAgMbpdkI9afgE8XkachMALcfekugQG1aYV1Nji1osCrSbNSivbsjZ0GD948PCNVCesjKV-0Nk7OlisyNpbvXsQbmVcoj3FcPy3tntVg9ERSW7QY-Ro5R7fnQ1EVvDHdRvOO8tx8p0/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuIvAgMbpdkI9afgE8XkachMALcfekugQG1aYV1Nji1osCrSbNSivbsjZ0GD948PCNVCesjKV-0Nk7OlisyNpbvXsQbmVcoj3FcPy3tntVg9ERSW7QY-Ro5R7fnQ1EVvDHdRvOO8tx8p0/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuIvAgMbpdkI9afgE8XkachMALcfekugQG1aYV1Nji1osCrSbNSivbsjZ0GD948PCNVCesjKV-0Nk7OlisyNpbvXsQbmVcoj3FcPy3tntVg9ERSW7QY-Ro5R7fnQ1EVvDHdRvOO8tx8p0/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
girlfriend music girly tattoos
njdude26
03-31 08:37 AM
Im on my 8th year on H1. still stuck in Labor :(
My company is giving me a promotion and a raise in salary. Do i have to inform Labor about any of this ??!!
My company is giving me a promotion and a raise in salary. Do i have to inform Labor about any of this ??!!
hairstyles girly tattoos on side. girly
anil_gc
11-30 12:27 PM
Since your PD is in 2006, It may be a mistake.
This month I have seen many applicatiions with PD - EB2-India Jan-2003 to Jan 2004 are approved.
If you see many other updates like "Card production ordered" "Welcome NEW permanent residents" in the coming days then it may be a real approval
This month I have seen many applicatiions with PD - EB2-India Jan-2003 to Jan 2004 are approved.
If you see many other updates like "Card production ordered" "Welcome NEW permanent residents" in the coming days then it may be a real approval
darsh678
12-28 10:36 AM
Hey
I am also in a sort of similar situation...
neways you can ofcourse go back to school but what I think is it should be in USA. As your AP can't be valid for such a long time of year. just like GC where you have to be back in a year. I would suggest that go for further education and update your career but try doing it in USA, I am sure you can get something better in here too...
Best Luck...
I am also in a sort of similar situation...
neways you can ofcourse go back to school but what I think is it should be in USA. As your AP can't be valid for such a long time of year. just like GC where you have to be back in a year. I would suggest that go for further education and update your career but try doing it in USA, I am sure you can get something better in here too...
Best Luck...
harivenkat
05-11 01:06 PM
This is happening right now
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
No comments:
Post a Comment