Quadrucle
09-15 12:39 PM
Hi All,
Pardon my ignorance, but after seeing the initial steps of the CIR, I feel there's some hope for the Employment based immigrants, but no one seems to be discussing anything positive about it. Am I missing something here? :confused:
Thanks
Pardon my ignorance, but after seeing the initial steps of the CIR, I feel there's some hope for the Employment based immigrants, but no one seems to be discussing anything positive about it. Am I missing something here? :confused:
Thanks
wallpaper est friends forever quotes
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
sathyaraj
11-15 05:04 PM
I meant the same, they will ask only for your current employer paystubs and RFEs not the future employer. but if there is substantial difference in wages then there could be some potential problems. This is to asses your intentions whether you will continue to work with the same job as mentioned in ur LC.
No way they will ask for pay-stubs from future employer. With EAD you can do any job. They may ask for pay stubs and W2 from Current employer.
No way they will ask for pay-stubs from future employer. With EAD you can do any job. They may ask for pay stubs and W2 from Current employer.
2011 est friends forever quotes for girls. est friends forever quotes
bestofall
12-30 09:56 PM
How did you find out , that files are assigned to I/O
more...
karthikgk
02-19 07:01 PM
Thanks guys for making the effort to understand my situation.
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
jonty_11
07-11 04:38 PM
Normally a Month, ask ur lawyer to call and find out.
more...
samuel5028
04-05 05:35 AM
If its illegal, then you have to consult an attrony.
2010 hot friends forever quotes for
vagish
04-28 12:10 PM
See the whole thing here : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010201376.html
My regtrogression brothers and sisters.....IF WE WANT TO END RETROGRESSION and end the H1B blackout WE HAVE GOT TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE ILLEGAL KIND and point out the congress and the general populace that there is another kind of immigration which is called ***TADA*** LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Its involves a process of granting permenant residence and citizenship to folks who are
1) Present Legally.
2) Entered LEgally.
3) Work legally.
4) Pay their income taxes.
5) Pay their social security and medicare taxes even when there is no guarantee of the benefits of either until they actually become citizens.
6) Play by the rules, file petitions for work permits and for permenant residency.
Our goal is not the hurt or help the cause of illegals but to make sure that we dont get punished due to wrath against them. After all, we played by the rules and we wait in line by the rules. We dont need amnesty. We need fair deal.
I once again urge you all to channel your energy to immigrationvoice.org This is a non-profit established with goal of ending retrogression using the next immigration bill as a vehicle. Its folks like you and me Losing sleep over retrogression. People like us wondering "What wrong did I do to deserve another 5-6 years of H1B extensions". I am not asking you to put money upfront. It does not cost anything to enroll or join or volunteer. But pooling ideas is invaluable. Stop sulking. Act now.
I totally agree we need participation more than anything else and spread the word. I have been sending feelers to friends who somehow don't get it. They pay attention when I talk to them, but then there is no action. Its a shame, but kudos to all of you guys. As for me, I have lined up to meet up with assistants, office staff for law makers from my district and offices from Senators of Washington state. I am working on the logistics to provide my inputs on Retrogression and IV. So far I have heard both of them support immigration reform. I am requesting to meet with them in person, but me and my wife needs to meet with office staff first. Next week will keep you guys posted more.[/QUOTE]
only legal immigration will have zero support from democrats, since they control both senate and house, it will be virtually immpossible, to get anything in any stand alone bill
My regtrogression brothers and sisters.....IF WE WANT TO END RETROGRESSION and end the H1B blackout WE HAVE GOT TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE ILLEGAL KIND and point out the congress and the general populace that there is another kind of immigration which is called ***TADA*** LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Its involves a process of granting permenant residence and citizenship to folks who are
1) Present Legally.
2) Entered LEgally.
3) Work legally.
4) Pay their income taxes.
5) Pay their social security and medicare taxes even when there is no guarantee of the benefits of either until they actually become citizens.
6) Play by the rules, file petitions for work permits and for permenant residency.
Our goal is not the hurt or help the cause of illegals but to make sure that we dont get punished due to wrath against them. After all, we played by the rules and we wait in line by the rules. We dont need amnesty. We need fair deal.
I once again urge you all to channel your energy to immigrationvoice.org This is a non-profit established with goal of ending retrogression using the next immigration bill as a vehicle. Its folks like you and me Losing sleep over retrogression. People like us wondering "What wrong did I do to deserve another 5-6 years of H1B extensions". I am not asking you to put money upfront. It does not cost anything to enroll or join or volunteer. But pooling ideas is invaluable. Stop sulking. Act now.
I totally agree we need participation more than anything else and spread the word. I have been sending feelers to friends who somehow don't get it. They pay attention when I talk to them, but then there is no action. Its a shame, but kudos to all of you guys. As for me, I have lined up to meet up with assistants, office staff for law makers from my district and offices from Senators of Washington state. I am working on the logistics to provide my inputs on Retrogression and IV. So far I have heard both of them support immigration reform. I am requesting to meet with them in person, but me and my wife needs to meet with office staff first. Next week will keep you guys posted more.[/QUOTE]
only legal immigration will have zero support from democrats, since they control both senate and house, it will be virtually immpossible, to get anything in any stand alone bill
more...
gcnirvana
05-14 09:03 PM
This is a EB3 - General Poll across all countries
Can you create one for EB2, please? Thanks!
Can you create one for EB2, please? Thanks!
hair funny quotes about est
morchu
06-25 10:48 PM
I believe the employer cannot legally penalize you for leaving the job. But some expenses like, "sign on bonus" are legally refundable if you don't agree to the terms mentioned. So it really depends on what exact expense they are asking (or otherwise based on the definition of a "penalty" vs "refund"). Also the employment laws differ between states (for example some allow non-compete agreements and some don't).
more...
GCAmigo
07-23 04:41 PM
My PERM was filed last November & Audit was replied in Feb'08.. still no no news..
hot est friends forever quotes for girls. Best Friend Quotes And Sayings
solaris27
08-15 08:58 AM
Q. How soon can I leave my petitioning employer once I get my green card approval?
A. There is no brief answer to this question. Let me explain. The basic premise (or theory) behind permanent residence through offer of employment is that an employee is accepting a job on a "permanent" bases. What does "permanent" mean? Does it mean for ever. Obviously not. That would be unreasonable. But "permanent" also does not mean that you pack your bags the moment you receive your green card. So what is the answer? No one really knows. Each case has to be determined upon its own merits. Normally, I would say working for one year or more with the same employer after getting your GC is PROBABLY enough indication of permanency. Less than 4-5 months is perhaps evidence to the contrary
But REMEMBER, this is just my own guess. Technically speaking, the moment you decide that you will leave after a certain period of time, "permanent" intent is gone. Catch-22 eh? Well that is the way it is.
There may be considerable relaxation in this interpretation because in the year 2001 Congress enacted a law that permits employees to leave an employer even while their I-485 is pending. We do not have the regulations or any detailed guidance on these issues.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
----------------------------------------------
Q. I did not willingly left the GC sponsor employer but actually after three months I got my GC, i got laid off from the project and due to the bad economy , my employer was not able to get me other project so he gave me letter saying that he wont be able to pay me salary since he doesnt have any project for me.And, after getting that letter I resigned from GC sponsor employer.
This is the whole scenario, now considering it, Am I still at risk?
A. There are no clear rules as we have stated above. But, In my opinion, there is no risk in this scenario. You acted in good faith to continue the job, but your employer could not continue to employ you.
Q. I am employed at the XYZ University (XYZU). I applied for 485 myself (without attorney). My 485 was approved last month and I got my passport stamped in July. My contract with XYZU is coming to an end. My job is renewed every year based on the availability of funding. I have been with XYZU for the last 5 years. There is a possibility that they (XYZU) may not extend the contract because the research grant I got is coming to an end in september.
Will my termination from the job at XYZU affect my Green Card in the future, and is it better to be terminated from service (based on unavailability of funding) by the WVU or is it better to offer my resignation?
A. I think it is better to be terminated. There are no clear rules as we have stated above. But, In my opinion, there is no risk in this scenario. You acted in good faith to continue the job, but your employer could not continue to employ you.
A. There is no brief answer to this question. Let me explain. The basic premise (or theory) behind permanent residence through offer of employment is that an employee is accepting a job on a "permanent" bases. What does "permanent" mean? Does it mean for ever. Obviously not. That would be unreasonable. But "permanent" also does not mean that you pack your bags the moment you receive your green card. So what is the answer? No one really knows. Each case has to be determined upon its own merits. Normally, I would say working for one year or more with the same employer after getting your GC is PROBABLY enough indication of permanency. Less than 4-5 months is perhaps evidence to the contrary
But REMEMBER, this is just my own guess. Technically speaking, the moment you decide that you will leave after a certain period of time, "permanent" intent is gone. Catch-22 eh? Well that is the way it is.
There may be considerable relaxation in this interpretation because in the year 2001 Congress enacted a law that permits employees to leave an employer even while their I-485 is pending. We do not have the regulations or any detailed guidance on these issues.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
----------------------------------------------
Q. I did not willingly left the GC sponsor employer but actually after three months I got my GC, i got laid off from the project and due to the bad economy , my employer was not able to get me other project so he gave me letter saying that he wont be able to pay me salary since he doesnt have any project for me.And, after getting that letter I resigned from GC sponsor employer.
This is the whole scenario, now considering it, Am I still at risk?
A. There are no clear rules as we have stated above. But, In my opinion, there is no risk in this scenario. You acted in good faith to continue the job, but your employer could not continue to employ you.
Q. I am employed at the XYZ University (XYZU). I applied for 485 myself (without attorney). My 485 was approved last month and I got my passport stamped in July. My contract with XYZU is coming to an end. My job is renewed every year based on the availability of funding. I have been with XYZU for the last 5 years. There is a possibility that they (XYZU) may not extend the contract because the research grant I got is coming to an end in september.
Will my termination from the job at XYZU affect my Green Card in the future, and is it better to be terminated from service (based on unavailability of funding) by the WVU or is it better to offer my resignation?
A. I think it is better to be terminated. There are no clear rules as we have stated above. But, In my opinion, there is no risk in this scenario. You acted in good faith to continue the job, but your employer could not continue to employ you.
more...
house funny friends forever quotes.
a_tyagi26
02-02 12:10 PM
Assume:
This mean from the date this bill gets enacted, one should stay in USA for five years continuously.
It's impossible, atleast for me. I can't even think that I won't be able to go to India for 5 years. It would be a torture on my soul. This kind of clause works for an un-documented immigrant, who don't have a choice to leave but not for legal immigrant.
What my company tell me to go to another country say some Brazil to implement project and infrastructure and I had to stay 2 months? Then I have to start afresh ?
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
This mean from the date this bill gets enacted, one should stay in USA for five years continuously.
It's impossible, atleast for me. I can't even think that I won't be able to go to India for 5 years. It would be a torture on my soul. This kind of clause works for an un-documented immigrant, who don't have a choice to leave but not for legal immigrant.
What my company tell me to go to another country say some Brazil to implement project and infrastructure and I had to stay 2 months? Then I have to start afresh ?
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
tattoo Best Friend Quotes for Girls;
mnq1979
09-21 07:38 AM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
more...
pictures est friends forever quotes for girls. est friends forever quotes
Anders �stberg
June 4th, 2004, 01:47 PM
I find closeups are often surprising, gives a different perspective on ordinary subjects.
I updated the posts to include EXIF data for each picture.
I updated the posts to include EXIF data for each picture.
dresses est friends forever quotes for
rockstart
08-27 09:32 AM
With so many auidts being done on companies with high numbers of H1B employees. It kind of helps the employer if the employees move to EAD status that will reduce the percentage of people on H1 drastically and put then under the radar.
more...
makeup est friends forever quotes for girls. est friends forever quotes
dionysus
01-29 06:19 PM
True. We are all turning amateur lawyers by now. Our resumes should have a line saying experience includes, but not limited to, decoding complex USCIS regulations, preparing legal communications etc.
Able/willing!!
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
Able/willing!!
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
girlfriend est friends forever quotes
buddyinus
09-16 02:56 PM
SAME HERE - THOSE WHO HAVE STOPPED CALLING ME BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID I WILL ASK THEM TO THE RALLY WILL NEVER BE MY FRIENDS ANYMORE.
Well...This is called "Heights" or "Crossing the limits". Now come on...a friend who has helped u a lot in the past, but cannot(or will not) make it to DC for whatever reasons, u r gonna cut ur relationship with him??? Either u r mean or u dont respect ur friend's decision. Different ppl have different perspectives and one shud respect that rather than cutting off valuable relationships by being narrow minded and expect others to follow what he/she is doing. Else they'll be loners all their lives.
Well...This is called "Heights" or "Crossing the limits". Now come on...a friend who has helped u a lot in the past, but cannot(or will not) make it to DC for whatever reasons, u r gonna cut ur relationship with him??? Either u r mean or u dont respect ur friend's decision. Different ppl have different perspectives and one shud respect that rather than cutting off valuable relationships by being narrow minded and expect others to follow what he/she is doing. Else they'll be loners all their lives.
hairstyles Poems For Your Best Friend.
TEKNMEK
02-10 12:55 AM
Thanks everybody for your suggestions. Unfortunately canada is not a option. I have sent an email to Chennai consulate for emergency appointment request. Have to wait and see how it goes. Will update you all with any information I find out.
Thanks
Thanks
raj7480
09-18 04:42 PM
I would recommend not to worry about that and make the move. Non compete in general is not easy to enforce through a court. Particularly if it stops you from earning your livelihood. If you live in CA, it not valid. Many states have different laws and most of the court decision favor employees.
Since you H1B was denied, Company A cannot prove any loss of business to them because of your move.
Since you H1B was denied, Company A cannot prove any loss of business to them because of your move.
anu_t
06-16 01:11 AM
http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=5428
GRASSLEY CONTINUES WORK TO CLOSE H-1B AND L VISA LOOPHOLES
WASHINGTON -- Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin today continued their quest to ensure that American workers are protected, and that companies who bring in foreign workers are complying with the law.
The Senators today sent a letter to Emilio Gonzalez, the director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, asking more questions about how the agency is addressing fraud and abuse in the H-1B visa program.
Earlier this month, the Senators sent letters to the top 9 foreign-owned companies to determine the companies' usage of H-1B visas. Today's letter comes on the heels of responses received from several of the foreign companies.
"From the responses we've received thus far, it�s evident that American workers are in the minority at these companies. I expect Citizenship and Immigration Services to take a hard look at their recruiting methods to make sure they are complying with the law," Grassley said. "We cannot just increase the annual allocation of visas without understanding how companies are using them."
"We've begun to question how many companies are complying with H-1B visa requirements," Durbin said. "I look forward to hearing back from Director Gonzalez on what the government is doing to enforce the law."
At this time, Grassley and Durbin will not be releasing the information received from the companies.
Here is a copy of the letter to Gonzalez.
June 13, 2007
The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20529
Dear Director Gonzalez:
Recently, we asked the foreign-based companies who obtain the most H-1B visas to answer questions regarding their workforce, wages, recruitment efforts, and usage of H-1B visas in the United States. Our letters were intended to learn more about how some companies are using the H-1B visa program. We remain concerned that the H-1B and L visa programs are facilitating the displacement of Americans by cheaper foreign workers. We continue our effort to understand how the H-1B and L visa programs are being used by U.S. and foreign-based companies, and therefore request that you provide details related to these programs.
Under current law, H-1B-dependent employers are required to attest that they have not displaced comparable workers in the United States before hiring a foreign worker. They must also make a good faith effort to recruit Americans first.
The responses to our letters to foreign-based H-1B users have led us to question how many companies are currently defined as H-1B-dependent, and if these employers who depend on H-1B visa holders are being adequately monitored for compliance with H-1B program requirements. While we understand that the Department of Labor has primary jurisdiction over H-1B dependent employers, we would like to understand your agency�s role in ensuring compliance with laws regarding displacement and recruitment.
We have also become concerned about the use of L visas by companies who also use large numbers of H-1B visas. Many companies are allowed to bring in L visa workers through a Ablanket petition,@ which is approved by USCIS. While the blanket petition is meant to simplify the process, we fear that some foreign workers may be approved for visas by the Department of State without proper oversight by USCIS, which has primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with L visa program requirements.
In order to better understand the nature of the L visa program, we need to have access to better statistics. We would like to know how many L visas are approved each year, and what companies use the program. We would also like to know more about the use of the blanket petition for L visa holders, and USCIS=s ability to monitor individual visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on a blanket petition.
Finally, we are concerned about the level of fraud monitoring of the H-1B and L visa programs. While we understand that the Fraud Detection and National Security unit is analyzing and writing an assessment of the H-1B program, we are concerned that abuse of both programs is not being addressed adequately. Given that the immigration bill before the Senate includes a provision to allow USCIS to divert special funds to other operations, we would like to know how many dollars have been used specifically for H-1B and L fraud efforts. We also seek more details about how these investigations are being handled within the Department.
Given these concerns, we respectfully ask that the following answers be provided to us by Wednesday, June 20, 2007.
H-1B Dependent Employers
$ Please explain the process of identifying employers as H-1B dependent employers pursuant to INA Section 212(n)(3).
$ How many companies are defined by USCIS to be AH-1B dependent@ employers?
$ How are these H-1B dependent employers being monitored, if at all, by USCIS?
Blanket L Visa Petitions
$ How many L visas have been approved each year since 2000?
$ Please provide lists of companies that have used the L visa program for each of the two most recently available years, and how many visas each company has obtained in each year.
$ Since USCIS has primary jurisdiction over blanket petitions and visa policies, what role has been delegated to the Department of State and how is your agency ensuring that aliens under the blanket petition are being properly screened before entering the U.S.?
$ What role, if any, does USCIS play in monitoring the approval of L visas covered by blanket petitions?
$ Please provide an explanation of USCIS=s ability to track individual L visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on visas covered by a blanket petition.
Investigations of Fraud and Abuse
$ Annually, what has been the total amount of funds deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account under INA Section 286(v) since it was established? Of this amount, what amount has been provided to the Department of Homeland Security under 286(v)(2)(B)?
$ How have the funds provided pursuant to 286(v)(2)(B) been used in FY2005, FY2006, and thus far in FY2007? How many funds have not been expended in a given year?
$ How does USCIS plan to spend the remaining funds left in FY2007?
$ How many total fraud and abuse referrals have been sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the last two years? How many of these referrals, to your knowledge, have been pursued? How many referrals, to your knowledge, are pending? Please provide any further details about specific cases or referrals to ICE that may be helpful to understanding the process within the Department.
$ Please provide examples of recent investigative referrals to ICE dealing with H-1B or L visas. Please explain any referrals in the last two years that have not been pursued or that have been closed, and provide information on how many are currently pending.
While we anticipate your concerns about providing such information to us by Wednesday, June 20th, we must stress the fact that the U.S. Senate is considering comprehensive legislation that would change immigration policies for years to come. The H-1B and L visa programs must be better understood before further action is taken on this bill. We appreciate your cooperation in providing us with input in the next week.
Please contact XXXXXXXX if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator United States Senator
GRASSLEY CONTINUES WORK TO CLOSE H-1B AND L VISA LOOPHOLES
WASHINGTON -- Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin today continued their quest to ensure that American workers are protected, and that companies who bring in foreign workers are complying with the law.
The Senators today sent a letter to Emilio Gonzalez, the director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, asking more questions about how the agency is addressing fraud and abuse in the H-1B visa program.
Earlier this month, the Senators sent letters to the top 9 foreign-owned companies to determine the companies' usage of H-1B visas. Today's letter comes on the heels of responses received from several of the foreign companies.
"From the responses we've received thus far, it�s evident that American workers are in the minority at these companies. I expect Citizenship and Immigration Services to take a hard look at their recruiting methods to make sure they are complying with the law," Grassley said. "We cannot just increase the annual allocation of visas without understanding how companies are using them."
"We've begun to question how many companies are complying with H-1B visa requirements," Durbin said. "I look forward to hearing back from Director Gonzalez on what the government is doing to enforce the law."
At this time, Grassley and Durbin will not be releasing the information received from the companies.
Here is a copy of the letter to Gonzalez.
June 13, 2007
The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20529
Dear Director Gonzalez:
Recently, we asked the foreign-based companies who obtain the most H-1B visas to answer questions regarding their workforce, wages, recruitment efforts, and usage of H-1B visas in the United States. Our letters were intended to learn more about how some companies are using the H-1B visa program. We remain concerned that the H-1B and L visa programs are facilitating the displacement of Americans by cheaper foreign workers. We continue our effort to understand how the H-1B and L visa programs are being used by U.S. and foreign-based companies, and therefore request that you provide details related to these programs.
Under current law, H-1B-dependent employers are required to attest that they have not displaced comparable workers in the United States before hiring a foreign worker. They must also make a good faith effort to recruit Americans first.
The responses to our letters to foreign-based H-1B users have led us to question how many companies are currently defined as H-1B-dependent, and if these employers who depend on H-1B visa holders are being adequately monitored for compliance with H-1B program requirements. While we understand that the Department of Labor has primary jurisdiction over H-1B dependent employers, we would like to understand your agency�s role in ensuring compliance with laws regarding displacement and recruitment.
We have also become concerned about the use of L visas by companies who also use large numbers of H-1B visas. Many companies are allowed to bring in L visa workers through a Ablanket petition,@ which is approved by USCIS. While the blanket petition is meant to simplify the process, we fear that some foreign workers may be approved for visas by the Department of State without proper oversight by USCIS, which has primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with L visa program requirements.
In order to better understand the nature of the L visa program, we need to have access to better statistics. We would like to know how many L visas are approved each year, and what companies use the program. We would also like to know more about the use of the blanket petition for L visa holders, and USCIS=s ability to monitor individual visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on a blanket petition.
Finally, we are concerned about the level of fraud monitoring of the H-1B and L visa programs. While we understand that the Fraud Detection and National Security unit is analyzing and writing an assessment of the H-1B program, we are concerned that abuse of both programs is not being addressed adequately. Given that the immigration bill before the Senate includes a provision to allow USCIS to divert special funds to other operations, we would like to know how many dollars have been used specifically for H-1B and L fraud efforts. We also seek more details about how these investigations are being handled within the Department.
Given these concerns, we respectfully ask that the following answers be provided to us by Wednesday, June 20, 2007.
H-1B Dependent Employers
$ Please explain the process of identifying employers as H-1B dependent employers pursuant to INA Section 212(n)(3).
$ How many companies are defined by USCIS to be AH-1B dependent@ employers?
$ How are these H-1B dependent employers being monitored, if at all, by USCIS?
Blanket L Visa Petitions
$ How many L visas have been approved each year since 2000?
$ Please provide lists of companies that have used the L visa program for each of the two most recently available years, and how many visas each company has obtained in each year.
$ Since USCIS has primary jurisdiction over blanket petitions and visa policies, what role has been delegated to the Department of State and how is your agency ensuring that aliens under the blanket petition are being properly screened before entering the U.S.?
$ What role, if any, does USCIS play in monitoring the approval of L visas covered by blanket petitions?
$ Please provide an explanation of USCIS=s ability to track individual L visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on visas covered by a blanket petition.
Investigations of Fraud and Abuse
$ Annually, what has been the total amount of funds deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account under INA Section 286(v) since it was established? Of this amount, what amount has been provided to the Department of Homeland Security under 286(v)(2)(B)?
$ How have the funds provided pursuant to 286(v)(2)(B) been used in FY2005, FY2006, and thus far in FY2007? How many funds have not been expended in a given year?
$ How does USCIS plan to spend the remaining funds left in FY2007?
$ How many total fraud and abuse referrals have been sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the last two years? How many of these referrals, to your knowledge, have been pursued? How many referrals, to your knowledge, are pending? Please provide any further details about specific cases or referrals to ICE that may be helpful to understanding the process within the Department.
$ Please provide examples of recent investigative referrals to ICE dealing with H-1B or L visas. Please explain any referrals in the last two years that have not been pursued or that have been closed, and provide information on how many are currently pending.
While we anticipate your concerns about providing such information to us by Wednesday, June 20th, we must stress the fact that the U.S. Senate is considering comprehensive legislation that would change immigration policies for years to come. The H-1B and L visa programs must be better understood before further action is taken on this bill. We appreciate your cooperation in providing us with input in the next week.
Please contact XXXXXXXX if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator United States Senator
0 comments:
Post a Comment