pappu
08-12 12:52 PM
IV core,
Thanks very much for your tireless work.
I have some serious questions to you. Hope you will answer them. I fully understand that you are all volunteers. I am not demanding anything; rather this is a request...
1) Does IV working on any temprory EB visa fix for people waiting for 8 years? Or IV is waiting for CIR to happen?
2) A simple one line amendment (that is easily acceptable by the lawmakers) in a must pass bill will fix the problems of long time sufferers. Does IV have anything in its agenda?
3) Does IV beleive in bringing releif to IV members in steps or do you want to solve all members problem in one shot? If the second case is true, is it possible in this economy?
4) Recently many immigration related amendments are debated in congress; not for one bill but during two bills. There was no single amendment that helps the heavily retrogated categories. Why IV is not successful in requesting the lawmakers to bring up an amendment? Is there a single soul (lawmaker) sympathetic to our cause? If money is the only issue, I will donate first and persuade my friends to do the same.
We (me and many of my friends) were once active members right from the early days of IV. We contributed and involved in every IV initiative before. Now we are in the sidelines. I strongly beleive, members like me will be active again once we see any hope. Right now there is none.
We are open to all possibilities in getting relief (big or small) for the community.
You may want to read more about the process of a bill , politics of the immigration issue and how it affects any bill. It is not as simple as one line amendment.
Please get involved with IV and learn more what we are doing. Try getting appointments with your lawmakers and take part in action items. We currently have an action item going. You will know how the process of amendment and bills work. Opening threads asking IV core is not going to help.Help yourself by actively getting involved.
BTW Could you update/complete your profile. This data is helpful for IV advocacy efforts and also for IV tracker.
Thanks very much for your tireless work.
I have some serious questions to you. Hope you will answer them. I fully understand that you are all volunteers. I am not demanding anything; rather this is a request...
1) Does IV working on any temprory EB visa fix for people waiting for 8 years? Or IV is waiting for CIR to happen?
2) A simple one line amendment (that is easily acceptable by the lawmakers) in a must pass bill will fix the problems of long time sufferers. Does IV have anything in its agenda?
3) Does IV beleive in bringing releif to IV members in steps or do you want to solve all members problem in one shot? If the second case is true, is it possible in this economy?
4) Recently many immigration related amendments are debated in congress; not for one bill but during two bills. There was no single amendment that helps the heavily retrogated categories. Why IV is not successful in requesting the lawmakers to bring up an amendment? Is there a single soul (lawmaker) sympathetic to our cause? If money is the only issue, I will donate first and persuade my friends to do the same.
We (me and many of my friends) were once active members right from the early days of IV. We contributed and involved in every IV initiative before. Now we are in the sidelines. I strongly beleive, members like me will be active again once we see any hope. Right now there is none.
We are open to all possibilities in getting relief (big or small) for the community.
You may want to read more about the process of a bill , politics of the immigration issue and how it affects any bill. It is not as simple as one line amendment.
Please get involved with IV and learn more what we are doing. Try getting appointments with your lawmakers and take part in action items. We currently have an action item going. You will know how the process of amendment and bills work. Opening threads asking IV core is not going to help.Help yourself by actively getting involved.
BTW Could you update/complete your profile. This data is helpful for IV advocacy efforts and also for IV tracker.
myimmiv
02-26 10:09 AM
Any thoughts ?
HumHongeKamiyab
04-08 02:39 PM
What if VISA is not given .. can you come back?
Valid I 94 is good enough at port of entry (even if your visa in your pp is expired)... as long as
1. your stay in canada is not more than 30 days
2. you did not appear for the visa interview (@US consulate) in canada.
3. You are not from a terrorist sponsored contries such as Iran, N. Korea etc.
This is called as "Automatica visa Revalidation" rule.
In other words if your visa is rejected @ the consulate and if your visa in passport is expired, you CANNOT come back to USA (using 30 day "automatica visa revalidation" rule).
--HumHongeKamiyab
Valid I 94 is good enough at port of entry (even if your visa in your pp is expired)... as long as
1. your stay in canada is not more than 30 days
2. you did not appear for the visa interview (@US consulate) in canada.
3. You are not from a terrorist sponsored contries such as Iran, N. Korea etc.
This is called as "Automatica visa Revalidation" rule.
In other words if your visa is rejected @ the consulate and if your visa in passport is expired, you CANNOT come back to USA (using 30 day "automatica visa revalidation" rule).
--HumHongeKamiyab
WaldenPond
02-05 12:40 AM
Two bills tackling this matter have recently been introduced. One is the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act, by Senators Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee; and Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. A similar bill was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. Several of the senators met with President Bush in December to encourage him to support the competitiveness legislation.
Hello stucklabor,
This is very promising news. We knew about PACE but another similar bill by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman just adds to the excitement. We should keep a close eye on these bills and maybe start sending communications to the lawmakers about these bills.
What do you say?
Hello stucklabor,
This is very promising news. We knew about PACE but another similar bill by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman just adds to the excitement. We should keep a close eye on these bills and maybe start sending communications to the lawmakers about these bills.
What do you say?
more...
dolicus
08-27 12:11 PM
Can you please Post the Dates of when you applied for I-140 & when you were APPROVED.
Thx
Thx
wandmaker
12-18 11:41 PM
L1A visa, validity May 2008
EB 1 category
I-140 receipt date July 27, 2007 & I-485 receipt date July 27, 2007.
When and how can I excercise AC 21 portability
Do I need an EAD for this
when: after your 140 is approved and 180 days has passed since you filed AOS.
how: by notifying USCIS that you are availing AC21, use EAD to work for new employer.
EB 1 category
I-140 receipt date July 27, 2007 & I-485 receipt date July 27, 2007.
When and how can I excercise AC 21 portability
Do I need an EAD for this
when: after your 140 is approved and 180 days has passed since you filed AOS.
how: by notifying USCIS that you are availing AC21, use EAD to work for new employer.
more...
nsb
07-17 04:52 PM
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
payur
03-11 08:11 PM
Ok, here is the response from my lawyer:
"You can give back both but make sure that you have a photocopy in your
file. Actually, the 2 I-94 cards have the same number."
"You can give back both but make sure that you have a photocopy in your
file. Actually, the 2 I-94 cards have the same number."
more...
pmlboy
05-01 04:57 PM
Thanks for your reply. I am getting the affidavits from my parents, as well as from blood relatives. However, I have been also asked to provide government document stating why mother's name is absent on birth certificate. I am trying to figure out any government law (currently checking births and deaths act of 1969), which can state that name of head-of-household is sufficient for birth certificates. My birth certificate also mentions the Births and Deaths Rules of 1972 of West Bengal, however, I can't locate an online document. If I have to get a statement from court, does anybody have any idea about what would be the template?
Thanks.
Thanks.
chapper
07-19 10:56 AM
Good Question - I'm also looking for an answer along these lines. We should work to find a solution
Can you start residency on EAD if you are the primary for 485? Meaning, can you use AC21 and change jobs from research to residency after 180 days from filing? Please help, really confused.
Can you start residency on EAD if you are the primary for 485? Meaning, can you use AC21 and change jobs from research to residency after 180 days from filing? Please help, really confused.
more...
Pagal
02-06 04:38 PM
I am a CDN citizen, so I know it a bit better.
:) I believe you... for me tax treaty is a 'nice-to-have', but the dual standards of taxation vs living status is my issue.
Taxation on consumption is my preference, but of course, that would be too logical for politicians and bureaucrats... ;)
See www.fairtax.org for details.
:) I believe you... for me tax treaty is a 'nice-to-have', but the dual standards of taxation vs living status is my issue.
Taxation on consumption is my preference, but of course, that would be too logical for politicians and bureaucrats... ;)
See www.fairtax.org for details.
chadoubra
06-21 01:52 PM
I found this website regarding Nogales and Mexican visa's. It may be helpful. Unfortunately, i'm from africa and need a visa :(
Q: Do I need a Mexico Visa to visit Nogales U.S. Consulate?
A: If you are in the following list of Nationalities you just need an FMT Tourist Card Click here to see sample FMT form Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, *Hong Kong,* Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta Monaco, Norway, New, Zealand, Poland Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States of America.
* Chinese citizens with passports issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region*
Q: What nationalities need Mexico Visa to visit Nogales U.S. Consulate?
A: The following are some of the nationalities that need Mexico Visa. Mexico Immigration Consultants can file on your behalf for Mexico permit you do not need to be present and we can expedite it in 5 to 10 days: Brazil, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Thailand & Turkey.
http://www.sandiegoleisure.com/NOGALESCONSULATETRIP.html
Q: Do I need a Mexico Visa to visit Nogales U.S. Consulate?
A: If you are in the following list of Nationalities you just need an FMT Tourist Card Click here to see sample FMT form Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, *Hong Kong,* Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta Monaco, Norway, New, Zealand, Poland Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States of America.
* Chinese citizens with passports issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region*
Q: What nationalities need Mexico Visa to visit Nogales U.S. Consulate?
A: The following are some of the nationalities that need Mexico Visa. Mexico Immigration Consultants can file on your behalf for Mexico permit you do not need to be present and we can expedite it in 5 to 10 days: Brazil, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Thailand & Turkey.
http://www.sandiegoleisure.com/NOGALESCONSULATETRIP.html
more...
bfadlia
10-22 01:22 PM
I can't help but notice that progress at TSC.
They were processing July 16, 2007 2 - 3 months back.
One fine day, they updated dates saying that they processed till June 16, 2007. (-ve by a month)
Last month, they made progress till June 23, 2007.
Since last month, they made a progress of one day - June 24, 2007.
Is this correct? or I am a brain dead person? unable to understand CIS processing dates, particulary going backwards really baffles me.:(
Here's my interpretation:
say last month, for EB3 ROW, the priority date was Jan 1st 2005, so they pick the cases earlier than that date and start working on them. They then say in the processing website that the oldest case they have worked on among these is july 8th. The following month, the priority date becomes May 1st 2005, so now they have to pull the cases whose priority dates are between January and May and add them to the processing queue. Some of these cases will have receipt dates earlier than July 8th, therefore the processing date this month can rightfully move back to reflect that.
But of course we also know USCIS doesnt follow a consistent process in pulling cases.
They were processing July 16, 2007 2 - 3 months back.
One fine day, they updated dates saying that they processed till June 16, 2007. (-ve by a month)
Last month, they made progress till June 23, 2007.
Since last month, they made a progress of one day - June 24, 2007.
Is this correct? or I am a brain dead person? unable to understand CIS processing dates, particulary going backwards really baffles me.:(
Here's my interpretation:
say last month, for EB3 ROW, the priority date was Jan 1st 2005, so they pick the cases earlier than that date and start working on them. They then say in the processing website that the oldest case they have worked on among these is july 8th. The following month, the priority date becomes May 1st 2005, so now they have to pull the cases whose priority dates are between January and May and add them to the processing queue. Some of these cases will have receipt dates earlier than July 8th, therefore the processing date this month can rightfully move back to reflect that.
But of course we also know USCIS doesnt follow a consistent process in pulling cases.
Bodran
05-25 02:04 PM
For some reason mine went the other way ,from Texas to Nebraska. It should have been in process at Texas but now Nebraska has retrogressed me about 5 months to March 10 2007 with my I-140 reeipt date of Aug. 16 2007. Can I complain about this? If so where?
Type : EB3
RD to TSC : Aug 16 th 2007
Concurent Filing : NO
Tranfered to NSC : April 7 th 2008
Last Update : April 15 th 2008
Current Status : This case is now pending at the office to which it was transfered
Approval Date : Pending
Type : EB3
RD to TSC : Aug 16 th 2007
Concurent Filing : NO
Tranfered to NSC : April 7 th 2008
Last Update : April 15 th 2008
Current Status : This case is now pending at the office to which it was transfered
Approval Date : Pending
more...
emmar
02-05 02:19 AM
Hi,
I think you have some really cute flash things on your websites. And how did you do that cool transparent ball with a gradient shadow on it, on the red background?
And your price seems really good too.
Maybe you would be interested in visiting another forum too, at www.wahm.com. You might be able to get some customers there because most people there have websites and don't know or have Flash.
I also find that they give good marketing advice. I don't know if you need it, but I do, so I really appreciate it.
I think you have some really cute flash things on your websites. And how did you do that cool transparent ball with a gradient shadow on it, on the red background?
And your price seems really good too.
Maybe you would be interested in visiting another forum too, at www.wahm.com. You might be able to get some customers there because most people there have websites and don't know or have Flash.
I also find that they give good marketing advice. I don't know if you need it, but I do, so I really appreciate it.
crystal
08-14 08:07 PM
They can study without any issue.They dont need any permission. Universersities allow to study on H4. Only thing is they cannot work like an F1-student.
Can H-4 holder (Dependent) can pursue higher studies in the US. Do we need any special permission from the USCIS ?
Any information will be highly appreciated. TIA
Can H-4 holder (Dependent) can pursue higher studies in the US. Do we need any special permission from the USCIS ?
Any information will be highly appreciated. TIA
more...
Googler
02-14 04:24 PM
"Based on a review of the facts and bedrock principles of administrative agency law, the Court finds that USCIS�s name check requirement has
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
vin13
03-09 05:18 PM
Hi,
Me and My friend developed a product, which is ready to launch. The product is very good and two fortune 500companies are willing to implement the product and back us up.
Now my problem is I am on H1B working fulltime with a company and also have an EAD. At this moment I cannot leave my fulltime job. My question is , if I can be a partner with my friend in the new company we are forming( My friend is a US citizen), also will I be able to get paid ( as the developement of the product drained my pocket, this was the hope and I think we are close to reap the hardwork) . Also my wife is also on EAD , can she be the partner? Will there be any issue if I can do that.
Please help!!
As a H1-B employee, if you are a partner to the company, you can take profits. but you cannot take salary as a employee. For example, you could be a 50% partner for profits. But your friend(US Citizen) can be the working partner who actually signs all the checks and contracts etc.
Best would be to make your wife who is on EAD to be the partner. She can be an employee and a partner. More flexibility. I do not see any issue.
Me and My friend developed a product, which is ready to launch. The product is very good and two fortune 500companies are willing to implement the product and back us up.
Now my problem is I am on H1B working fulltime with a company and also have an EAD. At this moment I cannot leave my fulltime job. My question is , if I can be a partner with my friend in the new company we are forming( My friend is a US citizen), also will I be able to get paid ( as the developement of the product drained my pocket, this was the hope and I think we are close to reap the hardwork) . Also my wife is also on EAD , can she be the partner? Will there be any issue if I can do that.
Please help!!
As a H1-B employee, if you are a partner to the company, you can take profits. but you cannot take salary as a employee. For example, you could be a 50% partner for profits. But your friend(US Citizen) can be the working partner who actually signs all the checks and contracts etc.
Best would be to make your wife who is on EAD to be the partner. She can be an employee and a partner. More flexibility. I do not see any issue.
poorslumdog
09-02 01:28 PM
Hi there,
I have been arrested for shoplifting. Finger printed,and produced in court. The case has been dismissed as I did not do it on purpose. I got the document from the court that case is DISMISSED. 1. Is it good to do the "Case Expungement"?
2. Does the port of entry officer sees the arrest even I expunge the case?
3. any other scenarios I might encounter?
Any suggestions are highly appreciated
Thank you
You shameless idiot...you are back again.
I have been arrested for shoplifting. Finger printed,and produced in court. The case has been dismissed as I did not do it on purpose. I got the document from the court that case is DISMISSED. 1. Is it good to do the "Case Expungement"?
2. Does the port of entry officer sees the arrest even I expunge the case?
3. any other scenarios I might encounter?
Any suggestions are highly appreciated
Thank you
You shameless idiot...you are back again.
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
drirshad
10-24 06:57 PM
Detroit Infopass officers are laid back, if it is the same heavy lady you had to go to I sympathize with you. She was the most mean govt official I have come across in past 10 years. Her response to me was the details about my case cannot be discussed due to National Security reasons, tried ask another question and was abruptly cut to be asked to wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment