ragz4u
10-24 12:52 PM
I was under the impression that only an 'approved' labor can be substituted. I recently had a conversation with a friend whose company attorney had told him that even unapproved labors stuck in the Backlog center can be substituted.
I am pretty confident that this is another case of an unethical, not-well-versed lawyer wishing to make a quick buck, but can someone please enlighten me if I am wrong?
I am pretty confident that this is another case of an unethical, not-well-versed lawyer wishing to make a quick buck, but can someone please enlighten me if I am wrong?
wallpaper Dark Gothic Angel
svgupta
05-14 12:31 PM
http://www.immigration.com/faq/canadianvisa.html#309
Much information is available on the web, just try posting questions on yahoo/google!
Much information is available on the web, just try posting questions on yahoo/google!
aps
09-23 01:53 AM
This is not fair and good idea. what about people waiting in line for years and invested their money elsewhere because of this green card delays or those who do not have enough money and job in this market situation. All of the sudden you are brining this idea. This is not fair. This is kind of buying green card. There is a investment based green card category available for that. I request you to go through that channel if you are rich. Not all employment based green card seekers are rich. Please keep that in mind.
thanks,
aps
thanks,
aps
2011 Music middot; My Playlists middot; Music
Legal
07-26 10:31 AM
According to my analysis based on recipted/pending I-485 they processed some 80-90K (estimated range) EB I-485 applications which 57/65% of 140k by April 2008.
May month usage was very low, i feel June/July not to bump too much so another 20k cases. We should still have FB rollover from 07 (31K) + another 10k visa in the pool for Aug/Sept visa.
It appears FB spillover is factored into EB quota in Sep bulletin every year.
May month usage was very low, i feel June/July not to bump too much so another 20k cases. We should still have FB rollover from 07 (31K) + another 10k visa in the pool for Aug/Sept visa.
It appears FB spillover is factored into EB quota in Sep bulletin every year.
more...
trueguy
10-06 06:41 PM
We should follow up on this. US Economy really can take advantage of our buying power. If they give us GC, people will start buying and stop sending their savings to off-shore. Also, buying each house comes with at least 50K other expenses (remodelling, furniture etc) and that will also help the economy.
IV should follow up on this topic with Lawmaker and see if they can understand the logic here.
IV should follow up on this topic with Lawmaker and see if they can understand the logic here.
xbohdpukc
02-12 08:25 PM
After reading through the forums, I understand the EB3-World needs to become current for any others to move forward.
But now I notice that EB3-World itself has stopped moving after jumping for some months. Any reasons? (The 245i is already cleared and now it is in Aug 02)
Is there any other 245is preventing it????
The demand for visa numbers is still being fed by both DOL backlog centers.
But now I notice that EB3-World itself has stopped moving after jumping for some months. Any reasons? (The 245i is already cleared and now it is in Aug 02)
Is there any other 245is preventing it????
The demand for visa numbers is still being fed by both DOL backlog centers.
more...
franklin
02-13 03:09 PM
I take up the challenge. I'm ROW, maybe this is the spur that will make me participate somewhat.
Yes, such a pity there was no one from the ROW group present in DC
Yes, such a pity there was no one from the ROW group present in DC
2010 Angels Gothic Celtic New
ghouse1742
03-30 06:03 PM
We all have different views and support different nut jobs standing in elections. The real sad part is to see some people who I dont think are really bad, openly in this discussion forum putting one community down. Supporting a arsonist, a murderer, a rapist and who has blood of 2000 innocent people on his hands as a "good" administrator is an insult to the intellegence we all claim to have. All communities/castes/religions have suffered enough in India already and not one religion or people can claim to be on morally high ground. We all have kept quiet through the darkest times in India. We should not anymore. Stop insulting the great men (Nehru, Gandhi and others) of our country. With out them and their work we all would be polishing the shoes of some firangi. We are young and we should think about pushing India forward, otherwise some of us with our twisted thinking (for sure we are all showing here) will be the next numb nuts standing in the elections in few years. Jai Hind!!!
more...
EkAurAaya
07-17 09:58 AM
Note to Moderators: I posted the same question as a separate thread, but then I thought this would be a good place to pose the question too...
Heres the background...
Primary:
EB3 Feb 2003 PD
i140 Approved
i485 files June 2007
for both wife and me...
EAD/AP - approved Sept 2007
EAD extension received June 2008 (1 year)
AP extension pending
(we have not used EAD/AP yet - we both are on H1b)
Derivative:
EB2 April 2004 PD
i140 Approved
Pending - i824 in Sept 2007 to convert AOS to CP (hoping it will get through by Oct this year)
Question:
Assuming we will get CP interview before AOS gets adjudicated, do you forsee any potential issues in this scenario?
Thanks in advance!
Heres the background...
Primary:
EB3 Feb 2003 PD
i140 Approved
i485 files June 2007
for both wife and me...
EAD/AP - approved Sept 2007
EAD extension received June 2008 (1 year)
AP extension pending
(we have not used EAD/AP yet - we both are on H1b)
Derivative:
EB2 April 2004 PD
i140 Approved
Pending - i824 in Sept 2007 to convert AOS to CP (hoping it will get through by Oct this year)
Question:
Assuming we will get CP interview before AOS gets adjudicated, do you forsee any potential issues in this scenario?
Thanks in advance!
hair Fallen Angel Digital Art
geevikram
11-09 11:41 PM
I would love to see how close is Sachug with his predictions once Dec bulletin comes through..
more...
okuzmin
10-19 11:28 AM
I just got my medical forms from Canadian Consulate in Buffalo. Our documents were accepted on December 8, 2005, and the letter that accompanied medical forms and request for updated documents (interview has been waived) is dated October 4, 2006. Heh, I wish USCIS had this kind of turnaround. :)
hot i#39;m currently designing
ubetman
01-13 02:38 PM
In my opinion, AC21 seekers will have affect only when they need H1 sponsorship with new employer and that too if they move to a consulting company.
correct me if I am wrong...
correct me if I am wrong...
more...
house info/GothicFairies/53.jpgquot;
gc_check
01-15 11:59 AM
Hope the AILA and ImmigrationVoice leadership can work together to urge USCIS to post a statement explaining that the guidelines in the memo are initially meant to encourage compliance by the businesses and prevent abuse; and that the USCIS would start enforcing them starting Jan 2012 or later. Thus it may be just a matter of getting used to the extra bureaucracy.
I pray that we all get sorted sooner, so we can start focusing on other important aspects of our careers and family lives.
_____________________for those very concerned____________________
It is easy to tell others to be cool headed to think rationally, but we all agree that its true -so let us try doing so.
I personally believe that most folks shall still be fine - this includes a lot of consulting company folks. We all (everyone having/renewing/aspiring H1) need to start collecting all documentary evidences as mentioned in the memo.
If you do not already do so - start following the guidelines for what USCIS considers as proof of Employer-employee relationships - exchanging weekly status e-mails, work assignments, etc. Also please remember to save these documents more securely (possibly at more than a single location). There could be a few more hassles, for example requesting access to old deleted e-mails from server backups. Start working to get yourself copies of service level agreements and contracts between the various layers of consulting companies - after seeing this memo most HR staff would get cooperative. Provide copies of the memo to your consulting companies sales and placement staff - as they would not want to loose their commissions and thus would help persuade your managers and HR staff to start complying.
_____________________________________________
Best Wishes for all.
Why do you think Jan 2012 a better date to start implementing this Memo... The memo in it is current form, does more harm than good.. wheather it is effective immediatley or not.
BTW, Once the memo is circulated, it is like a work instrcutions / guidance that will be followed immediately upon receipt or untill it is rescinded.
Though its intention is to target bad people and do good for all, this affected many many genuine cases too defeating the cause. Regardless, enforcement is good for people here already and for the ones planning to join the good people here in future, but the enforcement should not negatively hurt the good ones....
I pray that we all get sorted sooner, so we can start focusing on other important aspects of our careers and family lives.
_____________________for those very concerned____________________
It is easy to tell others to be cool headed to think rationally, but we all agree that its true -so let us try doing so.
I personally believe that most folks shall still be fine - this includes a lot of consulting company folks. We all (everyone having/renewing/aspiring H1) need to start collecting all documentary evidences as mentioned in the memo.
If you do not already do so - start following the guidelines for what USCIS considers as proof of Employer-employee relationships - exchanging weekly status e-mails, work assignments, etc. Also please remember to save these documents more securely (possibly at more than a single location). There could be a few more hassles, for example requesting access to old deleted e-mails from server backups. Start working to get yourself copies of service level agreements and contracts between the various layers of consulting companies - after seeing this memo most HR staff would get cooperative. Provide copies of the memo to your consulting companies sales and placement staff - as they would not want to loose their commissions and thus would help persuade your managers and HR staff to start complying.
_____________________________________________
Best Wishes for all.
Why do you think Jan 2012 a better date to start implementing this Memo... The memo in it is current form, does more harm than good.. wheather it is effective immediatley or not.
BTW, Once the memo is circulated, it is like a work instrcutions / guidance that will be followed immediately upon receipt or untill it is rescinded.
Though its intention is to target bad people and do good for all, this affected many many genuine cases too defeating the cause. Regardless, enforcement is good for people here already and for the ones planning to join the good people here in future, but the enforcement should not negatively hurt the good ones....
tattoo Angels Fairies Gothic
chanduv23
02-13 12:16 PM
its been a while i read the forums..
well... well !! chandubhai finally cooled down and talking wisdom :-)
well "the intent is the same" :) just following some wonderful advices from some good samaritans :)
But I will always stand on what I would like to see - What I want to see is UNITY among the community and I will be more happy if more and more people stand up and support the efforts.
well... well !! chandubhai finally cooled down and talking wisdom :-)
well "the intent is the same" :) just following some wonderful advices from some good samaritans :)
But I will always stand on what I would like to see - What I want to see is UNITY among the community and I will be more happy if more and more people stand up and support the efforts.
more...
pictures Gothic Prayer by *Ironshod on
apnair2002
04-29 09:23 AM
04/29/2007: Elimination of Substitution of Aliens for the Certified Labor Certification Applications
As we stated earlier, the OMB had 90 days to make a decision on this DOL Final Rule. It was submitted on 01/26/2007 and the OMB cleared on 04/27/2007, just immediately prior to expiration of 90 days.
This final rule will not go into effect until it is published by the DOL in the federal register. Record reflects that this final rule will not be published in the federal register, Monday, 04/30/2007. We have yet to see what changes to the proposed version of the rule the DOL made in the final rule. However, it is certain that this rule will not go into effect on Monday, 04/30/2007, and there may still be some actions the employers can make before it is published in the federal register.
Pending Labor Certification Cases: PERM rule does not allow any amendments and no substitution of alien beneficiary available until the PERM application is certified. By the time PERM is approved, it may be too late to initiate the substitution. However, the cases which are pending at the BECs are different. The beneficiaries can be substituted inasmuch as the job order and the BEC supervised recruitment has yet to be initiated. At this time, the amendment of the BEC application does not require a paper request and e-mail or even phone call request followed by fax will work to substitute the alien. Under the final rule which will go into effect soon, the labor certification applications at the stage of DOL can survive only if the substitution has been approved at the time of release of the final rule. Accordingly, the employers can contact the BECs tomorrow, Monday, to amend the pending ETA 705 and alien beneficiary over the phone, via e-mail, followed by the phone calls and fax or straightforwardedly via fax. CAVEAT: If substitution is denied and original beneficiary ETA 750 is denied for the reason that there is no beneficiary, the employer can lose everything!!
Certified Labor Certification Cases: These cases will not be able to survive unless the I-140 petition is quickly filed on Monday substituting the alien beneficiary. The earliest filing date will be "Tuesday" since overnight delivery has to reach the Service Centers. Still worth trying. Once it is "filed," it will be safe. There remain a host of issues which will have to be resolved by the USCIS as to the consequences of the denial of these substitution I-140 petitions on issues other than alien beneficiaries qualifications such as the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage, etc. Obviously, the denial becomes a "final" action, the cases on appeal to the AAO will continue to remain outside the parameter of the elimination rule. Another question is the effect of motion to reopen of denial of substitution I-140 petitions. There is some chance that the USCIS may decide that once the motion is granted and I-140 petition is approved, the DOL's final rule of elimination of substitution will not affect the case. What if the employer refiles the substitution I-140 petitions? The chances of these cases will remail slim or nil. Since it will be considred a "new" filing of substitution I-140 petition, the USCIS may rule that such filing will be subject to the DOL's substitution elimination final rule. There will be other issues which fall under the jurisdiction of the USCIS rather than DOL as related to the interpretation of the substitution I-140 petitions. The USCIS is scheduled to initiate this rule making process sooner or later. Please stay tuned.
Impact on the Retention of Priority Date: The rule of retention of priority date is governed not by the DOL but by the USCIS. Under the USCIS rule, the priority date of the labor certification application is not retained until I-140 petition is "approved." Accordingly, if the decision of the denial of the substitution I-140 becomes final on appeal, the substituting alien will not be able to retain the priority. Neither the original beneficiary can retain the priority date unless the alien beneficiary substition I-140 petition was filed after the I-140 had been approved for the original beneficiary.
Impact on the 7th-Year H-1B Extension: Until the substitution I-140 is denied and becomes final on appeal, the substitutiing alien will be able to continuously extend the H-1B status in one-year increment, but the substituted alien will not be able to extend the 7th-year H-1B status based on the substituted labor certification application. Once the decision of denial becomes final, the substituting alien will not be able to extend the H-1B status after that time, but the validity of the approved 7th-year H-1B status will remain valid until the expiration date.
Impact on the 245(i) Benefits: Grandfathering of the 245(i) benefits cannot be transferred to other aliens and substituting aliens cannot take over the 245(i) benefits unless the substitution was filed before April 30, 2001. Once the grandfathering is attached, it remains valid unless "not approveable at the time of labor certification application filing" is found. Accordingly, the denial of substitution I-140 petition on behalf of the substituting alien will have no affect on the original beneficiary's retention of the 245(i) benefits.
Well, let's wait and see the text of the soon-to-be published final rule.
As we stated earlier, the OMB had 90 days to make a decision on this DOL Final Rule. It was submitted on 01/26/2007 and the OMB cleared on 04/27/2007, just immediately prior to expiration of 90 days.
This final rule will not go into effect until it is published by the DOL in the federal register. Record reflects that this final rule will not be published in the federal register, Monday, 04/30/2007. We have yet to see what changes to the proposed version of the rule the DOL made in the final rule. However, it is certain that this rule will not go into effect on Monday, 04/30/2007, and there may still be some actions the employers can make before it is published in the federal register.
Pending Labor Certification Cases: PERM rule does not allow any amendments and no substitution of alien beneficiary available until the PERM application is certified. By the time PERM is approved, it may be too late to initiate the substitution. However, the cases which are pending at the BECs are different. The beneficiaries can be substituted inasmuch as the job order and the BEC supervised recruitment has yet to be initiated. At this time, the amendment of the BEC application does not require a paper request and e-mail or even phone call request followed by fax will work to substitute the alien. Under the final rule which will go into effect soon, the labor certification applications at the stage of DOL can survive only if the substitution has been approved at the time of release of the final rule. Accordingly, the employers can contact the BECs tomorrow, Monday, to amend the pending ETA 705 and alien beneficiary over the phone, via e-mail, followed by the phone calls and fax or straightforwardedly via fax. CAVEAT: If substitution is denied and original beneficiary ETA 750 is denied for the reason that there is no beneficiary, the employer can lose everything!!
Certified Labor Certification Cases: These cases will not be able to survive unless the I-140 petition is quickly filed on Monday substituting the alien beneficiary. The earliest filing date will be "Tuesday" since overnight delivery has to reach the Service Centers. Still worth trying. Once it is "filed," it will be safe. There remain a host of issues which will have to be resolved by the USCIS as to the consequences of the denial of these substitution I-140 petitions on issues other than alien beneficiaries qualifications such as the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage, etc. Obviously, the denial becomes a "final" action, the cases on appeal to the AAO will continue to remain outside the parameter of the elimination rule. Another question is the effect of motion to reopen of denial of substitution I-140 petitions. There is some chance that the USCIS may decide that once the motion is granted and I-140 petition is approved, the DOL's final rule of elimination of substitution will not affect the case. What if the employer refiles the substitution I-140 petitions? The chances of these cases will remail slim or nil. Since it will be considred a "new" filing of substitution I-140 petition, the USCIS may rule that such filing will be subject to the DOL's substitution elimination final rule. There will be other issues which fall under the jurisdiction of the USCIS rather than DOL as related to the interpretation of the substitution I-140 petitions. The USCIS is scheduled to initiate this rule making process sooner or later. Please stay tuned.
Impact on the Retention of Priority Date: The rule of retention of priority date is governed not by the DOL but by the USCIS. Under the USCIS rule, the priority date of the labor certification application is not retained until I-140 petition is "approved." Accordingly, if the decision of the denial of the substitution I-140 becomes final on appeal, the substituting alien will not be able to retain the priority. Neither the original beneficiary can retain the priority date unless the alien beneficiary substition I-140 petition was filed after the I-140 had been approved for the original beneficiary.
Impact on the 7th-Year H-1B Extension: Until the substitution I-140 is denied and becomes final on appeal, the substitutiing alien will be able to continuously extend the H-1B status in one-year increment, but the substituted alien will not be able to extend the 7th-year H-1B status based on the substituted labor certification application. Once the decision of denial becomes final, the substituting alien will not be able to extend the H-1B status after that time, but the validity of the approved 7th-year H-1B status will remain valid until the expiration date.
Impact on the 245(i) Benefits: Grandfathering of the 245(i) benefits cannot be transferred to other aliens and substituting aliens cannot take over the 245(i) benefits unless the substitution was filed before April 30, 2001. Once the grandfathering is attached, it remains valid unless "not approveable at the time of labor certification application filing" is found. Accordingly, the denial of substitution I-140 petition on behalf of the substituting alien will have no affect on the original beneficiary's retention of the 245(i) benefits.
Well, let's wait and see the text of the soon-to-be published final rule.
dresses Image for gothic romantic
ujjwal_p
10-15 05:38 PM
If spillover works, logic is simple. Pending applications ~290K. Quot available ~140k
So, in just two years, every category should be current. Lets not scratch our heads.
Please work out the data versus pending/quota/spillover. Do VISA DATES ENGINEERING. And figure out the visa dates process/workflow and put in front of DOS/USCIS to adopt. Or lobby to adopt. or rally to adopt.
Otherwise our math will always be different from DOS/USCIS math on visa dates ;)
Easy boss. It aint that simple. You think nobody's going to be awarded gc's in the next year from EB1 and EB2 ROW? Wow. You not only need spillover but also need really low demand from EB1 and EB2 ROW through next Oct. If economy start picking up we'll be piling up on the backlog again and back to twiddling our thumbs waiting for visa bulletin every month. The only way this can be solved is through more visas or through visa recapture. If either of them doesn't happen, we are pretty much guaranteed not seeing "current" for a good 5-10 years, assuming the economy starts recovering and adding more jobs which seems like it has slowly begun. Not that simple.
So, in just two years, every category should be current. Lets not scratch our heads.
Please work out the data versus pending/quota/spillover. Do VISA DATES ENGINEERING. And figure out the visa dates process/workflow and put in front of DOS/USCIS to adopt. Or lobby to adopt. or rally to adopt.
Otherwise our math will always be different from DOS/USCIS math on visa dates ;)
Easy boss. It aint that simple. You think nobody's going to be awarded gc's in the next year from EB1 and EB2 ROW? Wow. You not only need spillover but also need really low demand from EB1 and EB2 ROW through next Oct. If economy start picking up we'll be piling up on the backlog again and back to twiddling our thumbs waiting for visa bulletin every month. The only way this can be solved is through more visas or through visa recapture. If either of them doesn't happen, we are pretty much guaranteed not seeing "current" for a good 5-10 years, assuming the economy starts recovering and adding more jobs which seems like it has slowly begun. Not that simple.
more...
makeup Gothic Cliparts 2
Picasa
07-27 03:05 PM
Zimbabwean dollars.:D:D:D
With your attitude, you will not even become millionaire in Zimbabwean dollars.:D:D:D
With your attitude, you will not even become millionaire in Zimbabwean dollars.:D:D:D
girlfriend Gothic Angels Mermaidsquot;
Bpositive
05-17 05:51 PM
Best of luck...sri lankan sinhalese and sri lankan tamils...I hope you can accept each other's perspectives and move away from extreme positions.sri lanka is such a beautiful country. i hope i can visit again and explore the northern areas..here's wishing peace with dignity (not subjugation) for all.
hairstyles Gothic Angels Mermaidsquot;
JazzByTheBay
12-13 04:34 PM
If someone from country X, Y, or Z comes in on that same quota, that's OK - but we can't accept folks from countries A, B and C??
jazz
Let's assume that it can not be fought within US Constitutional framework then do we have a choice to bring this to international court level? Can US prove that keeping per country immigration quota for EB categories is not a discrimination but a policy to protect its citizens or per say to protect its industry/economy?
jazz
Let's assume that it can not be fought within US Constitutional framework then do we have a choice to bring this to international court level? Can US prove that keeping per country immigration quota for EB categories is not a discrimination but a policy to protect its citizens or per say to protect its industry/economy?
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
trramesh
06-01 02:09 PM
Guys,
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
No comments:
Post a Comment