DSLStart
07-28 02:54 PM
Same thing happened to me. I had posted it last week. My VSC approved 140 got transferred to TSC last week and today got email that the case is now pending. 485 was orignally filed at VSC that got transfered to TSC in March 2007.
Do you think something is cooking? ;)
Hi Everyone,
My I140 which has been approved for more than 4 years now was transferred from Texas to Nebraska.
Trying to find the method in USCIS madness - has this happened to anyone else also and any reason why they might suddenly have decided to do this?
One reason I can think of is my 485s are in NE so maybe they are trying to consolidate all information in one file??
Appreciate peoples inputs.
Do you think something is cooking? ;)
Hi Everyone,
My I140 which has been approved for more than 4 years now was transferred from Texas to Nebraska.
Trying to find the method in USCIS madness - has this happened to anyone else also and any reason why they might suddenly have decided to do this?
One reason I can think of is my 485s are in NE so maybe they are trying to consolidate all information in one file??
Appreciate peoples inputs.
wallpaper 2004 Acura TL | Toledo Sedans for sale | 2004 Acura TL Sedans for sale
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
asdqwe2k
05-22 09:36 AM
Official Press release..
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf
“This report illustrates that legal immigrants who play by the rules experience significant hardships that harm families, businesses, and, ultimately, our economy,” said Cornyn, who chairs the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. “I believe Congress can address these issues in a thoughtful yet decisive manner.”
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf
“This report illustrates that legal immigrants who play by the rules experience significant hardships that harm families, businesses, and, ultimately, our economy,” said Cornyn, who chairs the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. “I believe Congress can address these issues in a thoughtful yet decisive manner.”
2011 2004 Acura TL for sale
eb3_nepa
10-03 01:44 PM
If you did not know about this, then whomever was advising you did you a disservice.
I dont think it is a question of disservice. I mean if they want you to keep a copy of all the I-94s they shud atleast mention that ON the I-94.
I dont think it is a question of disservice. I mean if they want you to keep a copy of all the I-94s they shud atleast mention that ON the I-94.
more...
ajay
03-14 09:30 PM
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
I also just emailed.
thanks.
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
I also just emailed.
thanks.
Hassan11
03-26 11:53 AM
no, it is not the same position. the two positins have 2 different classifications and requirements. the first position (I have LC certified for) is a financial analyst which requires a bachelor degree. the second position is a senior financial analyst (for which LC was denied) which requires a masters degree and it is supervisory position. I asked my employer to request masters + 2 years experience for the senior position but lawyer said that my experience was acquired while working for the employer (while I was working as a financial analyst) so that experience can not count toward the senior position. this was a genuine promotion and not just to apply for EB2.
any feedback is appreciated.
There is a little chance to overcome this issue. Because of promotion in same occupation classification, one can not upgrade the education requirement to Master degree, if the same occupation required Bachelors degree in junior level. If your employer requested more experience (rather than education), probabaly they may approve the second LC, as it is geneune for asking more experience for senor level.
Now DOL and USCIS is tightening the requirement as everyone is shooting for higher requirement to apply in EB2.
any feedback is appreciated.
There is a little chance to overcome this issue. Because of promotion in same occupation classification, one can not upgrade the education requirement to Master degree, if the same occupation required Bachelors degree in junior level. If your employer requested more experience (rather than education), probabaly they may approve the second LC, as it is geneune for asking more experience for senor level.
Now DOL and USCIS is tightening the requirement as everyone is shooting for higher requirement to apply in EB2.
more...
himu73
04-09 04:33 PM
Himu, I have been following IV for months now and have been doing my small part lately. I wanted to post this because like you I also want other readers to be aware of what other people think of Senior Members. I don�t share your sentiments where you say Senior Members have heckled people (I am also a Junior Member). In fact they have been more then helping.
Now, let�s talk about the point you have raised. Tell me, which part of janakp's post you found heckling or offensive? To me he is giving the obvious answer, which anyone following the forums should have known already. We can do this, we can do that and of course everything that we can come up with but for everything we need VITAMIN M (DOLLARS).
My friend you must be aware that we are short of it (as you seem to be an avid follower of IV). As far as I understand we barely have the money for lobbying. So, I ask you what would be your response to any idea, which needs money to be fulfilled?
Just want to make sure over here .You think janakp telling nath.exists to start contributing (if he is not already doing so) to achieve our common goals is heckling Check for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heckling)?
.............................................
$60 + $20 (recurring contribution)
I understand your point. Only thing i wanted to suggest is that we should give response related to the question. Contribution is an integral part of what we need to do. People who are here understand that whether they are contributing or not.
Now, let�s talk about the point you have raised. Tell me, which part of janakp's post you found heckling or offensive? To me he is giving the obvious answer, which anyone following the forums should have known already. We can do this, we can do that and of course everything that we can come up with but for everything we need VITAMIN M (DOLLARS).
My friend you must be aware that we are short of it (as you seem to be an avid follower of IV). As far as I understand we barely have the money for lobbying. So, I ask you what would be your response to any idea, which needs money to be fulfilled?
Just want to make sure over here .You think janakp telling nath.exists to start contributing (if he is not already doing so) to achieve our common goals is heckling Check for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heckling)?
.............................................
$60 + $20 (recurring contribution)
I understand your point. Only thing i wanted to suggest is that we should give response related to the question. Contribution is an integral part of what we need to do. People who are here understand that whether they are contributing or not.
2010 2004 Acura TL Automatic
DSLStart
07-28 03:56 PM
The reason for transfer as per email was that the jurisdiction is now TSC But why now? why not transferred along with 485 in 2007?
Orignal poster,
what was your message in email/online status?
is it in any shape size or form possible that you would put your I-140 employer into a bracket of potentially fraudulent companies? or did you have sub labor? anything you can think of that your employer may not have toed the line as far as the law is concerned? i am not suggesting that fraud investigation is the cause of these happenings... i am in fact wondering if that could be the case... if you think your employers were super lawful, then who knows what USCIS is doing!!
Orignal poster,
what was your message in email/online status?
is it in any shape size or form possible that you would put your I-140 employer into a bracket of potentially fraudulent companies? or did you have sub labor? anything you can think of that your employer may not have toed the line as far as the law is concerned? i am not suggesting that fraud investigation is the cause of these happenings... i am in fact wondering if that could be the case... if you think your employers were super lawful, then who knows what USCIS is doing!!
more...
Karthikthiru
08-26 12:36 PM
Congrats. Did you change from AOS to CP? or You choose CP when you applied for I-140
hair 2004 Acura TL Automatic
Sakthisagar
06-11 11:35 AM
Having a "current" priority date, however, does not assure that a case will be adjudicated. The CIS, despite policy pronouncements to the contrary, clearly does not process cases on a "first in, first out" basis. Indeed, there does not appear to be any rational basis for their case selection scheme. The CIS Ombudsman has accused them of "picking the low hanging fruit" - meaning that they take "easy" cases in preference to "harder" cases, no matter when filed.
Applicants should not reasonably expect the CIS to adjudicate their pending adjustment of status applications shortly after their priority dates become current. Understand that when your priority date becomes current, that is just the start of the fight. You need to initiate vigorous inquiries through the CIS Ombudsman's office, the office of one of your Senators or your Congressman, and your own written inquiries and InfoPass appointment inquiries. Do not sit back and assume that they will do the right thing. Get on them and stay on them until your case is adjudicated.
Most important of all, do not simply assume that when your priority date becomes current, your case will be approved.
Applicants should not reasonably expect the CIS to adjudicate their pending adjustment of status applications shortly after their priority dates become current. Understand that when your priority date becomes current, that is just the start of the fight. You need to initiate vigorous inquiries through the CIS Ombudsman's office, the office of one of your Senators or your Congressman, and your own written inquiries and InfoPass appointment inquiries. Do not sit back and assume that they will do the right thing. Get on them and stay on them until your case is adjudicated.
Most important of all, do not simply assume that when your priority date becomes current, your case will be approved.
more...
chandra_mb
07-18 11:37 PM
I understand that to file 485, all applicants need to be in the US.
Do the dependents/spouse need to be present in the US to file the EAD later (after we get the 485 receipt) ?
Do the dependents/spouse need to be present in the US to file the EAD later (after we get the 485 receipt) ?
hot 2004 Acura TL for sale
dilbert_cal
05-02 07:54 PM
You have Enough time - I'd say a little more than enough time to think judiciously before you jump ship. Find a good employer -someone with whom you can stick around for a couple of years - and then make your move.
No need to be desperate and catch the first job opportunity which comes your way. PERM should take 4-6 months overall and one month for 140. You have 7 more months - now this is completely your personal choice - depending on how much of a risk taker are you - you can look for a good opportunity for say 2 months and then switch or loop another 4 months or maybe switch tomorrow. Thats a part you get to decide and enjoy.
No need to be desperate and catch the first job opportunity which comes your way. PERM should take 4-6 months overall and one month for 140. You have 7 more months - now this is completely your personal choice - depending on how much of a risk taker are you - you can look for a good opportunity for say 2 months and then switch or loop another 4 months or maybe switch tomorrow. Thats a part you get to decide and enjoy.
more...
house Pictures of 2004 Acura TL 3.2L
DUNBAR
09-22 12:48 PM
My labor was filed in 2008, got the Audit in filed month 2009,responded and got cleared in filed month 2010.
tattoo 2004 Acura TL BASE Sedan
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGQNdWGmBtZgX6k0g3h7WIJdALuhcaPguj7gzk8hQSnev_c0W4GfDMMZjIzwYak7OrtQrBWbcp_c9tQ7-fWd6HxdVBBq-tE56mJY66HmdMAW7UyfM5yi-JMXEOTqBSvyj8P622kDuvlgA/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGQNdWGmBtZgX6k0g3h7WIJdALuhcaPguj7gzk8hQSnev_c0W4GfDMMZjIzwYak7OrtQrBWbcp_c9tQ7-fWd6HxdVBBq-tE56mJY66HmdMAW7UyfM5yi-JMXEOTqBSvyj8P622kDuvlgA/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/AVvXsEhGQNdWGmBtZgX6k0g3h7WIJdALuhcaPguj7gzk8hQSnev_c0W4GfDMMZjIzwYak7OrtQrBWbcp_c9tQ7-fWd6HxdVBBq-tE56mJY66HmdMAW7UyfM5yi-JMXEOTqBSvyj8P622kDuvlgA/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGQNdWGmBtZgX6k0g3h7WIJdALuhcaPguj7gzk8hQSnev_c0W4GfDMMZjIzwYak7OrtQrBWbcp_c9tQ7-fWd6HxdVBBq-tE56mJY66HmdMAW7UyfM5yi-JMXEOTqBSvyj8P622kDuvlgA/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...
pictures 2004 Acura TL BASE Sedan
jayleno
06-20 08:05 AM
I don�t know about the port of entry, but for EAD and AP they might insist. You must have read my earlier post. In my case they had enough evidence to verify that I had a 485 application pending, but they still chose to send it back. I guess it also depends on the knowledge of the person handling your case. The only way to find out for sure is to apply and see if they send it back. Are you the primary applicant in your case or is it your husband? My lawyer said they did not get the 485 notice for 1 year now, but I know for sure that he has it.
I went for my driver's license in CT and they asked for an I-485 receipt notice when I showed my EAD as my status. They too sent me back saying they cannot give me a license without the I-485 receipt. You never know where they ask for that.
I would like to know if we can travel on AP without a I485 notice, do they ask for it at POE??
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
I went for my driver's license in CT and they asked for an I-485 receipt notice when I showed my EAD as my status. They too sent me back saying they cannot give me a license without the I-485 receipt. You never know where they ask for that.
I would like to know if we can travel on AP without a I485 notice, do they ask for it at POE??
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
dresses 2001 Acura TL for sale
sayantan76
07-21 08:51 AM
Normally my wife is the one who is used to post or follow up on the latest here.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
wow - thats a new one.......and really intriguing........one could argue that if a work can be done remotely - then why should the work be located in United States at all and hence - why the need for a visa? on the other hand - that would be totally counterproductive as companies would use the logic to outsource work outside the country and result in reduction in number of employees who pay US taxes.......
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
wow - thats a new one.......and really intriguing........one could argue that if a work can be done remotely - then why should the work be located in United States at all and hence - why the need for a visa? on the other hand - that would be totally counterproductive as companies would use the logic to outsource work outside the country and result in reduction in number of employees who pay US taxes.......
more...
makeup Acura TL Lip Spoiler 2004-2008
shahuja
02-04 05:50 AM
Its been over 3 weeks since my wife have H4 interview and the passport is still under "admin processing". This week her AP came and I have mailed it to her and now we want to get the passport back and travel on AP.
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
Hello raju6855,
I went for my H1B renewal at New Delhi on jan 14th and i am still waiting. Today is the 22nd calendar day. Has your wife got the pp back ? she appeared at ND as well ? Has she got any information from consulate or VFS ? what should we be doing in such a situation ?
Appreciate your reply.
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
Hello raju6855,
I went for my H1B renewal at New Delhi on jan 14th and i am still waiting. Today is the 22nd calendar day. Has your wife got the pp back ? she appeared at ND as well ? Has she got any information from consulate or VFS ? what should we be doing in such a situation ?
Appreciate your reply.
girlfriend 2004 Acura TL Navigation
stupendousman11
09-24 01:43 PM
EB2 India from NC.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
EAD CPO email on 9/23 :)
Wife's EAD (applied together) still pending. No LUDs either.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
EAD CPO email on 9/23 :)
Wife's EAD (applied together) still pending. No LUDs either.
hairstyles 2004 Acura TL | Toledo Sedans for sale | 2004 Acura TL Sedans for sale
ashkam
12-01 08:39 AM
If we have an AP, then do we still require a transit visa?
I am thinking of traveling by qatar airlines. I believe they dont have any transit visa requirement.
It's not your airline but your transit stop. If your flight is through London, you'll probably need a transit visa, but check with someone.
I am thinking of traveling by qatar airlines. I believe they dont have any transit visa requirement.
It's not your airline but your transit stop. If your flight is through London, you'll probably need a transit visa, but check with someone.
EkAurAaya
03-19 06:43 PM
no ones ever sold a house on H1B or EAD? :confused:
smuggymba
03-07 11:26 AM
You will retain your PD.
If your employer recalls the 140 it could casue potential disruptions. If you have an EAD, just port your employment to some other employer. That way you will be dealing with less hassles.
I haven't file 485 and have no EAD.
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
If your employer recalls the 140 it could casue potential disruptions. If you have an EAD, just port your employment to some other employer. That way you will be dealing with less hassles.
I haven't file 485 and have no EAD.
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
No comments:
Post a Comment