leonqiu
03-14 12:06 PM
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office�s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
hitch
07-13 07:37 PM
Hi Dear ,
I got an ofer from boeing I saw expert comments on this forums,I appreciate if u guys help me out in this matter .I recieved an offer letter from Boeing but when HR asked me about the Export control status then she told me to have a GC or Citizen for clearence infact the position for which i got an offer letter was in comercial planes and it has nothing to do with security infact no security clrence (Exempt) is required.
could you please let me that is there any chance i can move fwdand and tell the HR about my case again .please respond to this
thx for ur help.
Hitch
I got an ofer from boeing I saw expert comments on this forums,I appreciate if u guys help me out in this matter .I recieved an offer letter from Boeing but when HR asked me about the Export control status then she told me to have a GC or Citizen for clearence infact the position for which i got an offer letter was in comercial planes and it has nothing to do with security infact no security clrence (Exempt) is required.
could you please let me that is there any chance i can move fwdand and tell the HR about my case again .please respond to this
thx for ur help.
Hitch
hebron
08-10 09:55 AM
I am an EB3 applicant with PD of Sep 2004. I have an EAD but I haven't used it yet. I am still on H1-B.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
dtekkedil
07-03 10:47 AM
I guarantee you they won't do a thing with it. in fact they won't even be able to take it home (the workers that is) because they are not allowed to, it's almost like accepting bribes, right? Hey I have an idea, let's all apply lipstick and kiss a piece of paper and send that :D yes, even guys, it's for the greater good:D
LOL!
You are missing the point! Those flowers aren't meant for them! It is to show our protest in a unique way that will attract attention from the media! Till date there are only 3 websites that I have come across that covers this fiasco... Don't you want our plight announced in the media???
It may not make a difference today... but it will definitely make a difference tomorrow if we keep it up. Let the public know more about this broken immigration system. Raise awareness about every pain that we go through!
LOL!
You are missing the point! Those flowers aren't meant for them! It is to show our protest in a unique way that will attract attention from the media! Till date there are only 3 websites that I have come across that covers this fiasco... Don't you want our plight announced in the media???
It may not make a difference today... but it will definitely make a difference tomorrow if we keep it up. Let the public know more about this broken immigration system. Raise awareness about every pain that we go through!
more...
crystal
04-11 02:56 PM
When I look at any member public profile , I dont see Labor prority date and Category (Eb2/eb3). This is I guess because Labor priority date and category fields are not in addition information part of the profile. We need to move those fields into additional information part .
immigrant2007
07-19 03:05 PM
Thanks Raj. I am sure this will be helpful to many other people here too. Appreciate your time to write it as points.
What if the company with your first 140 withdras th applciation (assuming 140 was approved for more than 180 days and I485 is also pending more than 180 days)
Also when you join the new company what kind of benefits you get in term of Salary/ Position/ Promotion?
What if the company with your first 140 withdras th applciation (assuming 140 was approved for more than 180 days and I485 is also pending more than 180 days)
Also when you join the new company what kind of benefits you get in term of Salary/ Position/ Promotion?
more...
Green.Tech
07-25 05:37 PM
Yes that is right the job responsibilities can increase. For my case the labor was filed for engineer position but I am on a manager level now and title has changed. My responsibilities have increased means i have all resp advertised + more and lawyer said OK.
So, did you have to redo PERM for the manager's position or did your older PERM fly?
So, did you have to redo PERM for the manager's position or did your older PERM fly?
krish.d.rao
07-25 10:39 PM
you can use AC21 even if your I140 is not approved, provided your GC sponsoring employer does not revoke it. I am speaking from personal experience.
I was stuck in the same job for 7 years and changed jobs after 180 days of filing my 485. At that time my I140 had been pending for 12 months but i took a chance. Later i got an RFE on my I140 (experience letters) but it was approved a few days after i sent in the required information.
The job description was the same although my new salary was about twice the amount mentoned in my labor. AC21 provision was created keeping in mind the extensive backlogs so if you have a good relation with your present employer go ahead and make use of it.
I was stuck in the same job for 7 years and changed jobs after 180 days of filing my 485. At that time my I140 had been pending for 12 months but i took a chance. Later i got an RFE on my I140 (experience letters) but it was approved a few days after i sent in the required information.
The job description was the same although my new salary was about twice the amount mentoned in my labor. AC21 provision was created keeping in mind the extensive backlogs so if you have a good relation with your present employer go ahead and make use of it.
more...
chi_shark
02-18 01:58 PM
That is possible. It is like working with any other company. This not exactly self-employment, we (myself +my wife) have created own corporation with my wife has president and me as employee (Both of us have EAD). So then start working for that company. No need to inform USCIS, it is like working with any other company. Again i am still working in same or simlar job description per Labor/I140. It is verymuch legal and we are paying taxes too!!! .
oh yeah! it is legal i know that... however, i consulted lawyers on this and they were of the opinion that it is best to have a straight case where you are working for a large us corp. essentially, uscis can question if the company has enough work to sustain employing a person on a "permanent basis". that "permanent basis" appears to be one of the criteria for approval of labor/perm, I140 etc... thats why my query to you. it seems ability to pay can also be a question, however, that is not supposed to be brought up during adjudication of 485... so you are safe there...
so, this is real cool... thanks for sharing your info...
oh yeah! it is legal i know that... however, i consulted lawyers on this and they were of the opinion that it is best to have a straight case where you are working for a large us corp. essentially, uscis can question if the company has enough work to sustain employing a person on a "permanent basis". that "permanent basis" appears to be one of the criteria for approval of labor/perm, I140 etc... thats why my query to you. it seems ability to pay can also be a question, however, that is not supposed to be brought up during adjudication of 485... so you are safe there...
so, this is real cool... thanks for sharing your info...
Aah_GC
07-13 12:32 PM
Bend it like Beckham mates! Get funky hairstyles, market yourself well and play some average soccer with all kind of funky logos on your shirt.
more...
singhsa3
04-12 02:57 PM
Nice thoughts Harvinder,
But this exactly what we tried to do through the recent campaign on admin fixes..
Hi Friends and Administrators,
I have a suggestion. I am sure the administrators here have much better ideas than mine but I would request administrators to please read this suggestion with an open mind. It might be useful for the community.
I am sure we have enough members working for big companies like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Intel etc. The past experiences tell us that congress listens to these companies more than us even if we are making a valid point on the legal immigration issues. The irony here is that these companied care for H1 visa expansion not green card quota expansion. These big companies do not realize the benefit of green card quota expansion to them.
Let me prove how. A large proportion of the immigration community is working for small companies as consultants. Their immigration status makes changing jobs very difficult. Now I am sure if the people stuck in GC process get there GC thousands of people will not be forced to work for consultant companies and will look for permanent jobs. And these big companies are sitting on the top of the most desired companies to work for. These thousands of consultants will be more than happy to work for these big companies after they get there GC.
My point here is that if we can have these Companies speak for us, our voices can be heard by congress.
How this can be done: If immigrants working for these companies as consultants or permanent can start a chain of email and send a signed copy with hundred of signatures to the management, management might think of putting these points across to congress.
The contents of this email should be simple and achievable. Like
1. Recapture of unused Visas.
2. Get rid of the country quota. (This one is difficult but very beneficial).
3. Except US graduates form quota. (This one is controversial in IV community, but if US graduates are out of the quota every one is benefited. US graduates will be benefited more, but others will be benefited because there will be less number of people to share the quota. I mention this one because this point can get big support for the universities also, and I am sure congress does not ignore a voice coming form the universities.
About increasing the quota it is difficult and will not help much if the country quota is still exists.
If the email submitted to the management contain thousands of signatures from immigrants working for here company and people who support these immigrants in the company management and people like Bill Gates might talk to the congress to hemp us.
May be it is 2 cents suggestion but I would like the administrators to think out it with a open mind.
Thanks,
But this exactly what we tried to do through the recent campaign on admin fixes..
Hi Friends and Administrators,
I have a suggestion. I am sure the administrators here have much better ideas than mine but I would request administrators to please read this suggestion with an open mind. It might be useful for the community.
I am sure we have enough members working for big companies like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Intel etc. The past experiences tell us that congress listens to these companies more than us even if we are making a valid point on the legal immigration issues. The irony here is that these companied care for H1 visa expansion not green card quota expansion. These big companies do not realize the benefit of green card quota expansion to them.
Let me prove how. A large proportion of the immigration community is working for small companies as consultants. Their immigration status makes changing jobs very difficult. Now I am sure if the people stuck in GC process get there GC thousands of people will not be forced to work for consultant companies and will look for permanent jobs. And these big companies are sitting on the top of the most desired companies to work for. These thousands of consultants will be more than happy to work for these big companies after they get there GC.
My point here is that if we can have these Companies speak for us, our voices can be heard by congress.
How this can be done: If immigrants working for these companies as consultants or permanent can start a chain of email and send a signed copy with hundred of signatures to the management, management might think of putting these points across to congress.
The contents of this email should be simple and achievable. Like
1. Recapture of unused Visas.
2. Get rid of the country quota. (This one is difficult but very beneficial).
3. Except US graduates form quota. (This one is controversial in IV community, but if US graduates are out of the quota every one is benefited. US graduates will be benefited more, but others will be benefited because there will be less number of people to share the quota. I mention this one because this point can get big support for the universities also, and I am sure congress does not ignore a voice coming form the universities.
About increasing the quota it is difficult and will not help much if the country quota is still exists.
If the email submitted to the management contain thousands of signatures from immigrants working for here company and people who support these immigrants in the company management and people like Bill Gates might talk to the congress to hemp us.
May be it is 2 cents suggestion but I would like the administrators to think out it with a open mind.
Thanks,
saravanaraj.sathya
08-08 02:27 PM
Removed
more...
brb2
09-21 09:37 PM
Any time of the day there are more "guests" logged on than members. Making all the forums "members only" will double the membership right away:)
CCC2006
09-12 10:06 AM
A friend of mine sent me this link to find ur status after the 45 day letter.
http://www.pbls.doleta.gov/pbls_pds.cfm
The site says : The backlog public disclosure system only accepts Case numbers beginning with either a D or P.
Please enter the case number with all dashes.
Where the # represents a number
(e.g. P-#####-##### OR D-#####-##### ).
Unfortunately I dont have the number and the lawyer is not giving it to me. If this can help u guyz please do use it.
http://www.pbls.doleta.gov/pbls_pds.cfm
The site says : The backlog public disclosure system only accepts Case numbers beginning with either a D or P.
Please enter the case number with all dashes.
Where the # represents a number
(e.g. P-#####-##### OR D-#####-##### ).
Unfortunately I dont have the number and the lawyer is not giving it to me. If this can help u guyz please do use it.
more...
immi_seeker
04-06 12:10 AM
Bump.
shishya
09-02 11:13 AM
When i called last time when my wife EAD got approved, they told me the address on the application. So they should know.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
more...
Roger Binny
01-25 09:06 PM
Yeah....in 2011 again it will be viewed too late for CIR, because in 2012 they have to face presidential election and incumbent president would be preparing for 2nd term. And again there will be a promise for CIR and 2013 will be a fresh year, 2014 will be a mid-term election year, 2015 will be too late for the term as they have to face presidential elections in 2016. Cycle repeats...after 5 cycles (i.e. 20 years) we all will get GC or kicked out of queue by issuing rfe/memo or totally frustrated and gone back to our home country or we might be still waiting in line for CIR to rescue us.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
+1 and simply awesome.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
+1 and simply awesome.
suriajay12
05-07 07:31 AM
ganguteli,
there was a donor conference call a couple of weeks back, in which aman, pappu etc participated.
your thoughts of rally was discussed, but unfortunately the numbers are not quiet adding up as it did during the July 2007 fiasco.
As per what I learned from that discussion was when IV sees the "thousands" as per your quote they are willing to support the rally idea. Otherwise, it may not make the noise as we expect it to do.
Yes, I agree with IV core's line of thought in the "rally" idea. I too wish we can do a "rally" but...:-(
It works more easily the other way. If IV core endorses and supports a rally, then the numbers build up. If you dont start a campaign type of thread, where will the numbers come from. They will scatter here and there. Isnt that the case now.
there was a donor conference call a couple of weeks back, in which aman, pappu etc participated.
your thoughts of rally was discussed, but unfortunately the numbers are not quiet adding up as it did during the July 2007 fiasco.
As per what I learned from that discussion was when IV sees the "thousands" as per your quote they are willing to support the rally idea. Otherwise, it may not make the noise as we expect it to do.
Yes, I agree with IV core's line of thought in the "rally" idea. I too wish we can do a "rally" but...:-(
It works more easily the other way. If IV core endorses and supports a rally, then the numbers build up. If you dont start a campaign type of thread, where will the numbers come from. They will scatter here and there. Isnt that the case now.
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirbRiHnx1LfprjO4-y9nbbilyEQdkrLb6pQO5oPkQBh-57wFGmZDBH8Adnct2z3RtFEPO4uqwCDzx_wSNDL3moXqqAmKjwS9PtTKskxUBrC4i0xccECxdMKsHdN5qQo7C0_vcK5_p1XfI/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirbRiHnx1LfprjO4-y9nbbilyEQdkrLb6pQO5oPkQBh-57wFGmZDBH8Adnct2z3RtFEPO4uqwCDzx_wSNDL3moXqqAmKjwS9PtTKskxUBrC4i0xccECxdMKsHdN5qQo7C0_vcK5_p1XfI/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/AVvXsEirbRiHnx1LfprjO4-y9nbbilyEQdkrLb6pQO5oPkQBh-57wFGmZDBH8Adnct2z3RtFEPO4uqwCDzx_wSNDL3moXqqAmKjwS9PtTKskxUBrC4i0xccECxdMKsHdN5qQo7C0_vcK5_p1XfI/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirbRiHnx1LfprjO4-y9nbbilyEQdkrLb6pQO5oPkQBh-57wFGmZDBH8Adnct2z3RtFEPO4uqwCDzx_wSNDL3moXqqAmKjwS9PtTKskxUBrC4i0xccECxdMKsHdN5qQo7C0_vcK5_p1XfI/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)
tinamatthew
07-20 11:59 PM
Let's assume Two people A and B entered into US on Jan 1st 2004 with Visa stamping Valid till June 2006.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
Ignorance is not an excuse! If you speed and you are stopped will you tell the police man that you didnt know the speed limit on that street? I believe all immigrants should educate themselves with the law of the country and how it will affect them. I think it is a fair law that gives some people a fresh start and is very welcome for us as immigrants.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
Ignorance is not an excuse! If you speed and you are stopped will you tell the police man that you didnt know the speed limit on that street? I believe all immigrants should educate themselves with the law of the country and how it will affect them. I think it is a fair law that gives some people a fresh start and is very welcome for us as immigrants.
pcs
04-17 12:54 PM
Do it yourself & do not depend on your lawyer. Call them. I filed in Aug'05 & got it in 45 days. I used to call their IT guy in DC office & he was very prompt in fixing issues ( which could be IT related)
