reachag
08-31 10:10 AM
Looks like this is only for renewals
wallpaper The red light district
kondur_007
09-21 10:45 AM
Hi,
I am in a situation and hope someone here would be able to provide me with some advice. I was employed by Company A since 2006 and I was working at a Client location for the last 3 years. There is company B who is the primary vendor for the Client. Recently my H1 extension was denied and so I went out of status. I reached out to my end client for help. Since they are happy with my work, they said that they can talk to another vendor (company C) to sponsor a new H1 for me. Company C is now ready to file my H1 but the problem is that Company A somehow got to know about this and is enforcing a non compete agreement on me.
I wanted to know if they can do this even though the H1 was denied and they are unable to provide me with any job. Can they stop me from earning my livelihood. I did not go out and breached any contract, I am trying to move only because my H1 with company A has been denied. The only thing is that the end client is the same.
Regards
H1BInTrouble
I agree with all of the above advises and add one more thing:
Noncompete clauses are there in many job contracts (they have nothing to do with immigration; just employment contract has those); however, they are legally not enforcable in majority of the states.
In general, the best way is to google it for your state and see if it carrys any value at all (eg in California, they are completely useless and never enforceable).
Good Luck.
I am in a situation and hope someone here would be able to provide me with some advice. I was employed by Company A since 2006 and I was working at a Client location for the last 3 years. There is company B who is the primary vendor for the Client. Recently my H1 extension was denied and so I went out of status. I reached out to my end client for help. Since they are happy with my work, they said that they can talk to another vendor (company C) to sponsor a new H1 for me. Company C is now ready to file my H1 but the problem is that Company A somehow got to know about this and is enforcing a non compete agreement on me.
I wanted to know if they can do this even though the H1 was denied and they are unable to provide me with any job. Can they stop me from earning my livelihood. I did not go out and breached any contract, I am trying to move only because my H1 with company A has been denied. The only thing is that the end client is the same.
Regards
H1BInTrouble
I agree with all of the above advises and add one more thing:
Noncompete clauses are there in many job contracts (they have nothing to do with immigration; just employment contract has those); however, they are legally not enforcable in majority of the states.
In general, the best way is to google it for your state and see if it carrys any value at all (eg in California, they are completely useless and never enforceable).
Good Luck.
jai_immigration
12-21 08:41 PM
NRI Investing in Stocks India:
Wanted to know if any of you have been able to successfully Invest in Stocks/Mutual funds in Indian Market on a Repatriable basis. If so please share your experience and which brokerage you have used.
I have tried to contact various Indian brokerages like ICICIDirect, HDFC, Kotak...All say that they do not take NRI's from USA for a Brokerage account. No idea what the reason is. Please share your experience.
Wanted to know if any of you have been able to successfully Invest in Stocks/Mutual funds in Indian Market on a Repatriable basis. If so please share your experience and which brokerage you have used.
I have tried to contact various Indian brokerages like ICICIDirect, HDFC, Kotak...All say that they do not take NRI's from USA for a Brokerage account. No idea what the reason is. Please share your experience.
2011 redlight area in goa. One can look out over Old Goa
Maverick1
09-26 12:25 PM
Hi All,
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
I have been following the data for a while and I see a surge in EAD approvals. There are boatload of approvals from 9/24 and 9/25 (Some still pouring in).
If your case reached June21 (Not Jul 21st ?) , you can request an appointment at the local office and they can request a temp EAD card for you. Or since 90 days is over , you may call the 1 800 number.
Hi,
I filed (along with Wife and son) at NSC on july 2nd.
Got the Receiptts with Date Aug-28 for 485 for all of US.
Also Finished the Finger Printing on 25-Sep-2007.
When can I expect my receipts for EAD and AP?.
Anyone in the same boat?
Thanks,
alex...
AS I stated above there are quite a few approvals lately, but there are a bunch still waiting .
Question for those who got EAD and AP : Did your LUD on these applications change on line when your EAD/AP is approved ?
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
I have been following the data for a while and I see a surge in EAD approvals. There are boatload of approvals from 9/24 and 9/25 (Some still pouring in).
If your case reached June21 (Not Jul 21st ?) , you can request an appointment at the local office and they can request a temp EAD card for you. Or since 90 days is over , you may call the 1 800 number.
Hi,
I filed (along with Wife and son) at NSC on july 2nd.
Got the Receiptts with Date Aug-28 for 485 for all of US.
Also Finished the Finger Printing on 25-Sep-2007.
When can I expect my receipts for EAD and AP?.
Anyone in the same boat?
Thanks,
alex...
AS I stated above there are quite a few approvals lately, but there are a bunch still waiting .
Question for those who got EAD and AP : Did your LUD on these applications change on line when your EAD/AP is approved ?
more...
sayonara
09-11 06:20 PM
i am not sure if my lawyer has the receipts. my case was sent on 6.29.2007 and received on july 2nd.
i got my FP notice (for my wife also) yesterday in mail for 9/25 appt.
from the receipt number on FP notice i checked it on USCIS website. it says that they received the 485 app on 30 aug. and the LUD on 485 is 9/3.
Did your 485 get transferred to another center?
I am asking because my 485 was filed in NSC, went to CSC (along with my EAD and AP) and I got a transfer notice from CSC that my 485 has gone to NSC and the RD is 28th (I am a July 2nd NSC filer). Trying to gauge if my 485 receipt notice will have Aug 30th or July 2nd date.
TIA
i got my FP notice (for my wife also) yesterday in mail for 9/25 appt.
from the receipt number on FP notice i checked it on USCIS website. it says that they received the 485 app on 30 aug. and the LUD on 485 is 9/3.
Did your 485 get transferred to another center?
I am asking because my 485 was filed in NSC, went to CSC (along with my EAD and AP) and I got a transfer notice from CSC that my 485 has gone to NSC and the RD is 28th (I am a July 2nd NSC filer). Trying to gauge if my 485 receipt notice will have Aug 30th or July 2nd date.
TIA
anilsal
12-21 12:02 AM
Hi Msyedy,
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
Pradeep, can you post your credentials that entitled you to NIW(EB2). Just curious. You have a PhD?
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
Pradeep, can you post your credentials that entitled you to NIW(EB2). Just curious. You have a PhD?
more...
raysaikat
08-04 03:22 PM
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
I do not think that this statement is correct since the lady (presumably) never had her own H1-B.
I do not think that this statement is correct since the lady (presumably) never had her own H1-B.
2010 light district” as they
pcs
07-08 09:57 AM
Post his name & nobody will hire him.
more...
onemoredesi
06-21 10:53 AM
In case the I-485 is filed concurrently with I-140 or on the basis of a I-140 "pending approval", if the "I-140" is rejected (say because it was incorrectly classified as EB-2 when it should have been EB-3), then is the I-485 also automatically rejected? (My guess: YES)
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
Abhijit,
This happened to a very close friend of mine a couple of years ago when he was in hi 6th year. He luckily found a labor substitution at that time and was able to immediately file.
I-140 is probably most important of the entire green card process.. it is what proves the employer's capability to pay the prospective employee.
To your question, if I-140 is rejected, your entire application is denied.. I-485 is immediately nullified.
You might want to talk to your attorney if you have the slightest of the doubts..
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
Abhijit,
This happened to a very close friend of mine a couple of years ago when he was in hi 6th year. He luckily found a labor substitution at that time and was able to immediately file.
I-140 is probably most important of the entire green card process.. it is what proves the employer's capability to pay the prospective employee.
To your question, if I-140 is rejected, your entire application is denied.. I-485 is immediately nullified.
You might want to talk to your attorney if you have the slightest of the doubts..
hair Redlight Area In Goa. of Goa#39;s Freedom Movement
nandakumar
01-18 02:35 AM
This is an wonderful opportunity to help your self.
Please participate and show your support.
Please participate and show your support.
more...
myeb2gc
04-27 10:03 AM
Hi Ram,
My employer company is smaller one, 15 only.
And no marketing, but he is good giving me incentives.
I am planning to go with bigger consulting firm so that they can market me well and .....
So i am thinking of change of employer.
So are my earlier 3 questions.
My employer company is smaller one, 15 only.
And no marketing, but he is good giving me incentives.
I am planning to go with bigger consulting firm so that they can market me well and .....
So i am thinking of change of employer.
So are my earlier 3 questions.
hot district under a High
gbof
04-08 07:40 PM
are 2 locations based on states where you live.
Dallas and Phoenix.
If you live in:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Guam, or the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
Mail your application to:
USCIS Phoenix Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 21281
Phoenix, AZ 85036
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
1820 E. Skyharbor Circle S
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, or West Virginia
USCIS Dallas Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 660867
Dallas, TX 75266
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
2501 S. State Hwy. 121 Business
Suite 400
Lewisville, TX 75067
Yes, friend. My I-140 was approved from TSC and also my I-485 is pending at TSC and since 'm currently in Indiana, I had (reluctantly) mailed at Phoenix. Hoping for GC before EAD (wishful thinking). Amen !!
Dallas and Phoenix.
If you live in:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Guam, or the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
Mail your application to:
USCIS Phoenix Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 21281
Phoenix, AZ 85036
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
1820 E. Skyharbor Circle S
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, or West Virginia
USCIS Dallas Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 660867
Dallas, TX 75266
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
2501 S. State Hwy. 121 Business
Suite 400
Lewisville, TX 75067
Yes, friend. My I-140 was approved from TSC and also my I-485 is pending at TSC and since 'm currently in Indiana, I had (reluctantly) mailed at Phoenix. Hoping for GC before EAD (wishful thinking). Amen !!
more...
house Delhi shines, but red light area in darkness | Yahind News
dreamgc_real
12-06 02:06 PM
Dream Act is a moral issue and being fair to the kids who have made this country their own.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
tattoo items are areas of need.
vnsriv
03-28 01:25 PM
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
Dude you are looking at wrong link. Go to this http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
Check what is your PD. Make sure you are looking at right country/category/type. Compare your PD against what is posted here. If your PD is earlier than this date , then only start screaming. Else go in infinite wait loop.
PS : All the best.
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
Dude you are looking at wrong link. Go to this http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
Check what is your PD. Make sure you are looking at right country/category/type. Compare your PD against what is posted here. If your PD is earlier than this date , then only start screaming. Else go in infinite wait loop.
PS : All the best.
more...
pictures redlight area in goa. Aguada Fort, built by the Portuguese in 1612 and
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 .
dresses A peep at red light area in
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9sOeBw4gxNY7Zz2nLDzI2MzqYTPuFuyUMB5daaVOZGVmZ9J_qFL_Bu5esN9QwKUEjuIvtOtOvOC29G26klaF8xg9AIoXFiDfzUVVU6R0rP7u_O48dICe4-QdicmqFfqjNjdV3Z9zcg0c/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9sOeBw4gxNY7Zz2nLDzI2MzqYTPuFuyUMB5daaVOZGVmZ9J_qFL_Bu5esN9QwKUEjuIvtOtOvOC29G26klaF8xg9AIoXFiDfzUVVU6R0rP7u_O48dICe4-QdicmqFfqjNjdV3Z9zcg0c/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/AVvXsEj9sOeBw4gxNY7Zz2nLDzI2MzqYTPuFuyUMB5daaVOZGVmZ9J_qFL_Bu5esN9QwKUEjuIvtOtOvOC29G26klaF8xg9AIoXFiDfzUVVU6R0rP7u_O48dICe4-QdicmqFfqjNjdV3Z9zcg0c/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9sOeBw4gxNY7Zz2nLDzI2MzqYTPuFuyUMB5daaVOZGVmZ9J_qFL_Bu5esN9QwKUEjuIvtOtOvOC29G26klaF8xg9AIoXFiDfzUVVU6R0rP7u_O48dICe4-QdicmqFfqjNjdV3Z9zcg0c/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)
more...
makeup The red light district
logiclife
03-28 02:56 PM
Yes.
Yesterday's bill that was finalized by SJC did not have those items/provisions. And we were not expecting that to happen either.
There will be changes and provisions to whichever bill makes it to the senate floor (SJC or Frist) on the full senate session.
--Jay.
Yesterday's bill that was finalized by SJC did not have those items/provisions. And we were not expecting that to happen either.
There will be changes and provisions to whichever bill makes it to the senate floor (SJC or Frist) on the full senate session.
--Jay.
girlfriend redlight area in goa. City/municipal areas like; City/municipal areas like
life99f
06-18 11:25 PM
Part 2 application type
I use EB3 , which one should I check? a ?
my wife file with me, which one should she check? b?
part 3 processing information
were you inspected by a US immigration officer? yes or no
what does the "inspected" mean?
I use EB3 , which one should I check? a ?
my wife file with me, which one should she check? b?
part 3 processing information
were you inspected by a US immigration officer? yes or no
what does the "inspected" mean?
hairstyles as the red light district
hibworker
07-15 05:37 PM
Hand in all I-94 that are in your possession since last entry in to US.
radosav
10-04 01:47 PM
I-485 RD July 27 at Texas
I-140 AD May 25, 06 at Texas, LUD on I-140 July 28, 07
all checks (for I-485 & I-765) cashed Oct 3, 07 at California
Both I-485 cases transfered back to Texas on Oct 2, 07
I-765 shows received date as Oct 1, 07 and will stay at California. Does that mean I need to count 11 weeks from that date? And not from the date when packet was received in July?
I-140 AD May 25, 06 at Texas, LUD on I-140 July 28, 07
all checks (for I-485 & I-765) cashed Oct 3, 07 at California
Both I-485 cases transfered back to Texas on Oct 2, 07
I-765 shows received date as Oct 1, 07 and will stay at California. Does that mean I need to count 11 weeks from that date? And not from the date when packet was received in July?
Canuck
02-06 04:44 PM
I don't think an employer can force you to repay the green card costs if you leave them as soon as you get it. That is illegal and against the law to make a foreign national pay for the costs of green card sponsorship!
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น