CADude
11-08 12:46 PM
per USCIS released information approx 655K AOS pending application as of end of Sept 2007.
It's also has 281K EAD & 188K AP pending applications.
So long way to go for GC journey...
Source: http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Septem ber07.pdf
It's also has 281K EAD & 188K AP pending applications.
So long way to go for GC journey...
Source: http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Septem ber07.pdf
wallpaper Week 8 — Chelsea Kane,
sandeep77
02-02 07:43 PM
I am on F1 too and i recently went to India after we had applied for i-485. I used my AP and when i had asked in my Office of International education I was told that the moment i applied for i485 my F1 was cancelled.
pa_arora
07-16 01:18 PM
I liked ur signature...BTW what country r u from?
2011 pictures chelsea kane husband.
asanghi
02-09 12:39 AM
USCIS has been sued by Citizenship hopefuls for a reason which applies to us all. The process took longer time than expected.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/BAG7QO1AN18.DTL
What if we sue USCIS, if not USCIS then some other Fed agency. Least of all, it capture the nation's attention that IV badly needs and make it a mainstream issue just like illegal immigration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/BAG7QO1AN18.DTL
What if we sue USCIS, if not USCIS then some other Fed agency. Least of all, it capture the nation's attention that IV badly needs and make it a mainstream issue just like illegal immigration.
more...
Steve Mitchell
October 19th, 2003, 11:44 PM
Great shot Don....I like that image a lot.
pou-pou
06-06 01:30 PM
the one lovely green is there a few times :love:
more...
gcseeker2002
05-13 10:41 AM
Does anyone have access to this article :
http://www.diversityinc.com/members/login.cfm?hpage=21367.cfm&CFID=1754493&CFTOKEN=26728028
It looks like favoring us ....
http://www.diversityinc.com/members/login.cfm?hpage=21367.cfm&CFID=1754493&CFTOKEN=26728028
It looks like favoring us ....
2010 chelsea kane dancing with the
theOne
09-05 03:43 PM
I have GC for about a month now. I plan on taking up Corp-to-Corp, Independent, 1099 and W2 contracts. For corp-to-corp contracts I would like to incorporate a company if I can save on taxes over the 1099 contracts. I am also
in the process of engaging a CPA. Do you advise incorpating a LLC or S-Corp or a C-corp ?
Thanks,
theOne
in the process of engaging a CPA. Do you advise incorpating a LLC or S-Corp or a C-corp ?
Thanks,
theOne
more...
kaizersoze
03-21 12:32 PM
just noticed up the thread that there was a conf call held already. pankaj,
could you pls share the details.
could you pls share the details.
hair Celebrity Hairstyles Lookbook
satishku_2000
02-21 01:09 PM
I saw that in morning , trust me its one of those things I do on my laptop everyday in the morning.
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
more...
bleutuna
06-06 10:26 PM
Soul's just sucked so **** bad :love:
That transition between pages was maddening :hair:
:pope:
That transition between pages was maddening :hair:
:pope:
hot hairstyles Chelsea Kane:
himu73
04-13 09:18 AM
Hello
Can we a contact Indian/American organizations who can lend us support.
1. Today I read news wherein an organization of Indian Businessmen,Lawyers.Doctors are organizing fundraiser for Hilary Clinton. They are giving lot of money for her campaign. These people already have contacts with number of senators. They can help us in our cause at different level.
The Chairman of the organization in the news article Sant Singh Chatwal is a known hotilier in US.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NRI_group_to_raise_5_mn_for_Hillary/articleshow/1906983.cms
2. US-India Business Council is another such forum we can consider. Rediff has a news article wherein they are asking congress to increase H1s and make green card process easier. They have mentioned an address in Washington D.C
H St, Northwest headquarters in Washington, DC.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/apr/13visa.htm
Can we a contact Indian/American organizations who can lend us support.
1. Today I read news wherein an organization of Indian Businessmen,Lawyers.Doctors are organizing fundraiser for Hilary Clinton. They are giving lot of money for her campaign. These people already have contacts with number of senators. They can help us in our cause at different level.
The Chairman of the organization in the news article Sant Singh Chatwal is a known hotilier in US.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NRI_group_to_raise_5_mn_for_Hillary/articleshow/1906983.cms
2. US-India Business Council is another such forum we can consider. Rediff has a news article wherein they are asking congress to increase H1s and make green card process easier. They have mentioned an address in Washington D.C
H St, Northwest headquarters in Washington, DC.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/apr/13visa.htm
more...
house and chelsea kane staub
sparky_jones
10-05 10:49 AM
Never knew that spouse had to be included in the I-140 stage... Is this a new rule?
No, this is basically the left arm of the government not knowing how the right arm does its business.
No, this is basically the left arm of the government not knowing how the right arm does its business.
tattoo chelsea kane married.
sieger007
05-17 11:20 PM
Hey
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
more...
pictures hairstyles chelsea kane
jvs_annapurna
05-07 11:23 PM
sorry guys i was moving to new place. it was with i-94
dresses 2011, Dancing
Vet04
12-08 12:47 PM
" kumar1" - What has salary to do with questions or coming to forum? Sorry,I didn't get your point here. I have seen people post all sorts of questions and problems in this forum.
Thank you very much for the time to write your views though ,specially the cons, I would definitely like to know the cons too.
thanx sri, lord and smisachu for the answers.
Thank you very much for the time to write your views though ,specially the cons, I would definitely like to know the cons too.
thanx sri, lord and smisachu for the answers.
more...
makeup Chelsea Kane Hair
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
girlfriend Chelsea Kane Staub
Daisy
10-26 10:31 AM
I have a question: How many months in advance should you apply for H1 extension? Do you get extension from the date you applied or from date when your H1 expires?
hairstyles Celebrity Hairstyles Lookbook
swapnajay
10-09 01:02 PM
Dude!! Don't even think of applying for AOS now. The dates are not current and you have some issues with your H1-B. Please consult an Attorney immediately!!!!......
I came to the USA on 3rd November, 2006 in company A. I did not work a single day in company A. I joined to company B on 17th January, 2007. I have no idea how my employer filed my H1B in company B without any paystub. I joined to company C on 24th July as they started my GC process right away. My H1B with company B and C are still pending. Company C has filed my labor on 31st August and got approval on 11th September. I am planning to file I-140, I-485, I-765 and I-131 together. So my questions are:
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
I came to the USA on 3rd November, 2006 in company A. I did not work a single day in company A. I joined to company B on 17th January, 2007. I have no idea how my employer filed my H1B in company B without any paystub. I joined to company C on 24th July as they started my GC process right away. My H1B with company B and C are still pending. Company C has filed my labor on 31st August and got approval on 11th September. I am planning to file I-140, I-485, I-765 and I-131 together. So my questions are:
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
gapala
04-20 11:46 AM
Hi,
My in-laws came to US last Firday along with my kid who is a US citizen.
Their passport has a stamp that says Admitted on Apr 17 at Chicago, Class B2 and "Until" is blank. There should be a date that tells they can stay until this date.
What are my options now. Do i need to let it go or contact some one and bring it to their notice etc..
Any help is appreciated
Did you check the I-94 attached to passport? I-94 will have the date until... as that is what allows them to stay in the country.
you should find it on I-94, if it is not written along side stamp on passport.
My in-laws came to US last Firday along with my kid who is a US citizen.
Their passport has a stamp that says Admitted on Apr 17 at Chicago, Class B2 and "Until" is blank. There should be a date that tells they can stay until this date.
What are my options now. Do i need to let it go or contact some one and bring it to their notice etc..
Any help is appreciated
Did you check the I-94 attached to passport? I-94 will have the date until... as that is what allows them to stay in the country.
you should find it on I-94, if it is not written along side stamp on passport.
vroapp
12-08 08:10 AM
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
(202) 224-2541
Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)
(202) 224-4343
(202) 224-2541
Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)
(202) 224-4343
0 comments:
Post a Comment