meridiani.planum
07-30 06:31 AM
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5766
posted 07-24 09:59 AM
Ron Gotcher has some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Ron Gotcher
this makes no sense (with all due respect to Mr Gotcher). He basically claims that PD has been moved to allow CP cases to be processed faster to avoid visa number wastage.. However he also says that there is a huge backlog of AOS cases. Looking at how many CP cases are being called for interview in mumbai and delhi (low hundreds) I dont see how CP alone can help avoid a big wastage of visas. If USCIS is still 20k short, then its the massive pile of AOS cases they should be using, just like they did last year.
Also, if they waste visa numbers this year, it would be really gross incompetence. EB2-India has gone all the way from 2000 to 2006 this year. They slack off at the start of the year, then scramble in the end. I dont know why they follow this approach knowing full well that right at the end it puts them in a soup.
posted 07-24 09:59 AM
Ron Gotcher has some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Ron Gotcher
this makes no sense (with all due respect to Mr Gotcher). He basically claims that PD has been moved to allow CP cases to be processed faster to avoid visa number wastage.. However he also says that there is a huge backlog of AOS cases. Looking at how many CP cases are being called for interview in mumbai and delhi (low hundreds) I dont see how CP alone can help avoid a big wastage of visas. If USCIS is still 20k short, then its the massive pile of AOS cases they should be using, just like they did last year.
Also, if they waste visa numbers this year, it would be really gross incompetence. EB2-India has gone all the way from 2000 to 2006 this year. They slack off at the start of the year, then scramble in the end. I dont know why they follow this approach knowing full well that right at the end it puts them in a soup.
wallpaper Infected tattoo care infection.
msp1976
02-13 02:50 PM
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
at0474
12-13 02:15 PM
"There is no "reservation", the nature of the clause is a cap, it does not give another country a minimum quota, it is written as a restrictive provision. and again- just because it benefits someone else does not make discrimination "right", in the strictest sense. right and wrong when it comes to discrimination are not relative. and if you believe they are, it's mighty slippery slope my friend because it does not take time to find yourself on the other side."
--You have decided to coin the country cap quota as discrimination. After you take that position, everything you said seem difficult to challenge. Yes, you are absolutely right that "rights and wrongs" are not relative when you are discriminating against someone. You are also spot on that discrimination cannot be justified because it benefits others.
"you sound suspiciously supportive of the caste system. i will say it again. such a system is wrong. i do not care which side of the fence you are on. was depriving blacks from voting wrong? or was it ok from the white side of the fence? please think before you post."
--Why bother assuming opponent's position? What system I support doesn't add a jot to what we are discussing here. Depriving blacks from voting and not giving a greencard to you (inline with a bangladeshi) doesn't seem to hold any water. Let alone whites being "ok" with it, when you walk down the street with a bangladeshi, I hardly suspect if they can even identify you by your nationality.
"please think before you post"
--Let me try!!Hmmmmm!!! Nah!! IMHO, We cannot call country cap for EB categories as discrimination. Is it reflecting discrepencies in its implementation? Sure...no system works to justify its underlying intent accurately. Nevertheless, an attempt is made. Hence we call it a process. Harping against USCIS that it is plain discrimination is not going to get us anywhere. As times change, they have to change the policies to suit the prevaling circumstances as well. In the long run, if every other immigrant is a bangladeshi, I am sure they will be taken out from the diversity lottery program.
--You have decided to coin the country cap quota as discrimination. After you take that position, everything you said seem difficult to challenge. Yes, you are absolutely right that "rights and wrongs" are not relative when you are discriminating against someone. You are also spot on that discrimination cannot be justified because it benefits others.
"you sound suspiciously supportive of the caste system. i will say it again. such a system is wrong. i do not care which side of the fence you are on. was depriving blacks from voting wrong? or was it ok from the white side of the fence? please think before you post."
--Why bother assuming opponent's position? What system I support doesn't add a jot to what we are discussing here. Depriving blacks from voting and not giving a greencard to you (inline with a bangladeshi) doesn't seem to hold any water. Let alone whites being "ok" with it, when you walk down the street with a bangladeshi, I hardly suspect if they can even identify you by your nationality.
"please think before you post"
--Let me try!!Hmmmmm!!! Nah!! IMHO, We cannot call country cap for EB categories as discrimination. Is it reflecting discrepencies in its implementation? Sure...no system works to justify its underlying intent accurately. Nevertheless, an attempt is made. Hence we call it a process. Harping against USCIS that it is plain discrimination is not going to get us anywhere. As times change, they have to change the policies to suit the prevaling circumstances as well. In the long run, if every other immigrant is a bangladeshi, I am sure they will be taken out from the diversity lottery program.
2011 Infected Tattoo.
SSSarkar
06-27 03:18 PM
Well said...
EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM :
PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD RUMORS ! WE ARE ALREADY STRESSED AS IT IS. WE DONT NEED ONE MORE RUMOR LIKE THIS RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF LOGIC TO SUPPORT IT, PLEASE KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, FOR GOD'S SAKE !
IF YOU ARE FEELING INSURED, HELPLESS AND WITH NO CONFIDENCE - JUST REMEMBER, ALMOST EVERYONE IS FEELING THE SAME. JUST DONT HIT THE PANIC BUTTON BASED ON NOTHING, PLEASE !
JUST FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR LAWYER AND MAKE ALL THE DOCUMENTS READY TO FILE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO ! IF SOMETHING HAPPENS LET IT HAPPEN. NO NEED TO LIVE IT THRU TWICE, ONCE NOW AND ONCE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.
PEACE.:mad:
EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM :
PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD RUMORS ! WE ARE ALREADY STRESSED AS IT IS. WE DONT NEED ONE MORE RUMOR LIKE THIS RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF LOGIC TO SUPPORT IT, PLEASE KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, FOR GOD'S SAKE !
IF YOU ARE FEELING INSURED, HELPLESS AND WITH NO CONFIDENCE - JUST REMEMBER, ALMOST EVERYONE IS FEELING THE SAME. JUST DONT HIT THE PANIC BUTTON BASED ON NOTHING, PLEASE !
JUST FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR LAWYER AND MAKE ALL THE DOCUMENTS READY TO FILE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO ! IF SOMETHING HAPPENS LET IT HAPPEN. NO NEED TO LIVE IT THRU TWICE, ONCE NOW AND ONCE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.
PEACE.:mad:
more...
ksvreg
09-24 11:46 AM
when there were no dates in VISA BULLETIN for EB2 and EB3, how the people filed 485 in the year 2008 and 2009 under EB3 and EB2 as well?
mantric
12-14 01:46 PM
many of the immigration laws that are affecting us were put in place way before the IT boom that brought most of us here. people are right that the intention behind them is not malicious. but a law set in the 1960s may turn out to have a discriminatory effect in the 2000s. circumstances change and we live in the present not in the past.
lazycis case was good at pointing out the key clause in the constitution that may help us. it's the due process clause in the 14th amendment, which extends not just to citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clause
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
lazycis case argument is a case from 1975 of a case for retired people over 65 who had been in the country less than 5 years, drawing state medicare benefits.
the EB community has on other hand has a median age of 32, most have stayed here for 5-10 years at least, consists of net contributors to the US economy and has passed many educational, legal and career barriers to get here. after all this just when our careers are about to fly, many of us find our opportunities being crushed because of our nationality.
mbartosik case argument is of prisoners in gitmo. even they could challenge the court and get something better than what they had - a military tribunal vs no tribunal earlier.
are we pension drawing dependants of state, or criminals or prisoners to suffer silently for years and years like this at the prime of our lives ?
is'nt the EB community being deprived of liberty ? has the EB community received due process ?
the tipping point from influencing the lawmakers to challenging the laws in court comes when people realise that lawmakers are indifferent to their cause for whatever reason, and some way is needed to bring attention to their immediate suffering.
before we rush to say checkmate with a particular strategy, let's understand the chessboard and the moves available on it. by knowing our rights under the constitution that's all we are doing. this knowledge may be useful in influencing the lawmakers also, in raising the caps for example to reduce the discriminatory consequences of current laws.
agreed that we need an abundance of caution and we will most likely lose the case given we are arguing from a position of extreme weakness. yet the constitution does promise us due process as residents of this great land. let's think about that as well.
some precedents for legal challenges to immigration laws exist on the ACLU and Rajiv Khanna websites.
lazycis case was good at pointing out the key clause in the constitution that may help us. it's the due process clause in the 14th amendment, which extends not just to citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clause
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
lazycis case argument is a case from 1975 of a case for retired people over 65 who had been in the country less than 5 years, drawing state medicare benefits.
the EB community has on other hand has a median age of 32, most have stayed here for 5-10 years at least, consists of net contributors to the US economy and has passed many educational, legal and career barriers to get here. after all this just when our careers are about to fly, many of us find our opportunities being crushed because of our nationality.
mbartosik case argument is of prisoners in gitmo. even they could challenge the court and get something better than what they had - a military tribunal vs no tribunal earlier.
are we pension drawing dependants of state, or criminals or prisoners to suffer silently for years and years like this at the prime of our lives ?
is'nt the EB community being deprived of liberty ? has the EB community received due process ?
the tipping point from influencing the lawmakers to challenging the laws in court comes when people realise that lawmakers are indifferent to their cause for whatever reason, and some way is needed to bring attention to their immediate suffering.
before we rush to say checkmate with a particular strategy, let's understand the chessboard and the moves available on it. by knowing our rights under the constitution that's all we are doing. this knowledge may be useful in influencing the lawmakers also, in raising the caps for example to reduce the discriminatory consequences of current laws.
agreed that we need an abundance of caution and we will most likely lose the case given we are arguing from a position of extreme weakness. yet the constitution does promise us due process as residents of this great land. let's think about that as well.
some precedents for legal challenges to immigration laws exist on the ACLU and Rajiv Khanna websites.
more...
BharatPremi
12-13 10:32 PM
One possible argument someone can make is , if there isn't a per country limit on H1Bs, why should there be one on GCs?
We can have a lawsuit saying, cap both visa types or cap none.
If ever this law suit come before a judge, we can potentially win by creating a list of all the lost oppurtunities, lost time and money etc, basically building a human story around the restriction.
Other than that, I don't think per country qouta violates the constitution.
Anyways, I am enjoying this thread, very logical arguments in each reply.
Mark,
what say you?
We can have a lawsuit saying, cap both visa types or cap none.
If ever this law suit come before a judge, we can potentially win by creating a list of all the lost oppurtunities, lost time and money etc, basically building a human story around the restriction.
Other than that, I don't think per country qouta violates the constitution.
Anyways, I am enjoying this thread, very logical arguments in each reply.
Mark,
what say you?
2010 Infected tattoo care infection.
TeddyKoochu
09-17 01:33 PM
You are right on the point. In fact (I may be overly optimistic here), I would not be surprised at all to see PD of EB2I in 2007 or 2008 in the last quarter (Aug-Sept) and it may even see the magincal "C" in Sept 2010. (Making the dream come true for VDLRAO!!)
(Remember, with preadjudications, there are no more pending EB2-ROW (except for the new adjudications) and EB2 China has been in 2006 for quite some time as well in the past)
I sincerely hope your words come true! It has been a long wait for people who missed Jul 07. Lets hear from the expert VDL Rao.
(Remember, with preadjudications, there are no more pending EB2-ROW (except for the new adjudications) and EB2 China has been in 2006 for quite some time as well in the past)
I sincerely hope your words come true! It has been a long wait for people who missed Jul 07. Lets hear from the expert VDL Rao.
more...
snathan
01-21 06:27 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....!!
Everyone knows what the impact would be...no one coming up with the solutions or ready to fight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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....!!
Everyone knows what the impact would be...no one coming up with the solutions or ready to fight.
hair Infected tattoo care infection.
garybanz
12-14 02:35 PM
I still dont see any discrimination on the existing laws. The number of visas divided equally to all countries.
Why not divide equally across all races? or all kind of jobs? or different ages? or color of eyes? ...left hand right hand? Yankee fans and red sox fans?
Why not divide all the jobs in USA equally among some of the above categories?
EEO does not say take the total pool of jobs and divide it exactly equally among all the race, color, religion, sex, and national origin or for that matter any of the categories I mentioned. EEO says every one gets an equal shot at the job.
Do you understand the discrimination now?
Why not divide equally across all races? or all kind of jobs? or different ages? or color of eyes? ...left hand right hand? Yankee fans and red sox fans?
Why not divide all the jobs in USA equally among some of the above categories?
EEO does not say take the total pool of jobs and divide it exactly equally among all the race, color, religion, sex, and national origin or for that matter any of the categories I mentioned. EEO says every one gets an equal shot at the job.
Do you understand the discrimination now?
more...
amslonewolf
04-28 07:01 PM
Matthew Ohs website has it.. Check out immigration-law..
hot Infected tattoo care infection.
GCWhru
07-23 11:38 AM
Guys,
I think we have talked and analyzed enough about how many visas available for August and September and pretty much arrived at conclusion that at the minimum 20K visas available. (Thanks to vdlrao).
Now we should talk about capability of USCIS and its processing speed? What is the normal approval rate with USCIS's regular processing. Also we heard that USCIS recruited many people, Do we suppose to see any improvement in processing. Do we think all the 20K visas will be used within 2 months?
If USCIS is going to approve only 5K visas over next 2 months, there is no point in talking how many visas left.
Thanks
I think we have talked and analyzed enough about how many visas available for August and September and pretty much arrived at conclusion that at the minimum 20K visas available. (Thanks to vdlrao).
Now we should talk about capability of USCIS and its processing speed? What is the normal approval rate with USCIS's regular processing. Also we heard that USCIS recruited many people, Do we suppose to see any improvement in processing. Do we think all the 20K visas will be used within 2 months?
If USCIS is going to approve only 5K visas over next 2 months, there is no point in talking how many visas left.
Thanks
more...
house to treat a infected tattoo
thomachan72
03-28 09:49 AM
I just now posted that how no one mentioned Dr. JayaprakashNarayan. Well someone did mention.
I guess that's not enough. There are lot of people who are not aware of this great leader.We need to spread the word about LokSatta.
Listened to him and here are my thoughts:
Pros
1) Great idea about getting everybody involved in politics
2) Is certainly not an emotional man but rather with great convictions and integrity
Cons
1) Seems to somehow promote atleast sublimly that marksist/communist are better
The last thing we want in India is a marksist/communist movement. Right from the begining (first govt after independence) our prosperity has always been guided by a socialistic but increasingly capitalistic aproach. I wish he realizes that and focus more on political correctness rather than promote communism/socialism.
WE DONT WANT COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM IN INDIA. THESE PARTIES ARE ANTIDEVELOPMENT AND ANTIPROSPERITY. THEY WANT EVERYBODY TO BE POOOR, LAZY AND WITHOUT ANY PERSONAL FREEDOM. EVERYTHING IS FOR THE PARTY AND BY THE PARTY. INDIVIDUALITY DOESN'T EXIST.
I guess that's not enough. There are lot of people who are not aware of this great leader.We need to spread the word about LokSatta.
Listened to him and here are my thoughts:
Pros
1) Great idea about getting everybody involved in politics
2) Is certainly not an emotional man but rather with great convictions and integrity
Cons
1) Seems to somehow promote atleast sublimly that marksist/communist are better
The last thing we want in India is a marksist/communist movement. Right from the begining (first govt after independence) our prosperity has always been guided by a socialistic but increasingly capitalistic aproach. I wish he realizes that and focus more on political correctness rather than promote communism/socialism.
WE DONT WANT COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM IN INDIA. THESE PARTIES ARE ANTIDEVELOPMENT AND ANTIPROSPERITY. THEY WANT EVERYBODY TO BE POOOR, LAZY AND WITHOUT ANY PERSONAL FREEDOM. EVERYTHING IS FOR THE PARTY AND BY THE PARTY. INDIVIDUALITY DOESN'T EXIST.
tattoo The ring had
nozerd
05-13 10:21 AM
If the Judge things your staying out was unreasonable, PR will be cancelled and you will be asked to leave the country. If you do not leave the country voluntarily you will be deported.
I have heard Canadian Immigration officers are best swayed with reasons that involve a child. So if you had a child either just before or after becoming PR you can give the reason that you didnt wnat to move the child so soon after its birth, you wanted continuation of the Dr etc.
Thanks nozerd.
Also if the judge finds it unreasonable that I stayed out of CA for more than 3 years, will I be allowed to at least live in CA for the remaining duration (time remaining out of 5 years), OR I will have to leave CA immediately once the judge does not like my reasons.
Thanks again.
I have heard Canadian Immigration officers are best swayed with reasons that involve a child. So if you had a child either just before or after becoming PR you can give the reason that you didnt wnat to move the child so soon after its birth, you wanted continuation of the Dr etc.
Thanks nozerd.
Also if the judge finds it unreasonable that I stayed out of CA for more than 3 years, will I be allowed to at least live in CA for the remaining duration (time remaining out of 5 years), OR I will have to leave CA immediately once the judge does not like my reasons.
Thanks again.
more...
pictures when getting a tattoo,
antihero
03-27 05:18 PM
The great Indian Satta Market understands the nerve of the nation more accurately then others. And the buzz in the market is that a dark horse, who is not even in this group, will emerge as the next Indian PM.
dresses TattooKaleo
lfwf
02-15 07:20 PM
as always.
i'm indian fyi. i'm not techie, i have nothing top do with body shops. and yes i'm a little offended by the streotypical crap.
i do not claim any "best and brightest status" either.
here are my questions:
to the fighting indians: what good is the removal of a country cap on it's own? sure date for india will move a bit and row a little back. but most people will still be stuck because of the annual quota. without increased GC numbers the point of country quotas is moot.
to row warriors: i guess if it benefits you it must be fair. cool. maybe i would have felt the same in your place. but tell me...i came here and did a lot of education. today in EB2 people like me (and even less qualified than me) are walking through with today's PD. i am 10 years away from a GC. any good reason? why am is so bad? so inferior? why am i penalized for my place of birth? fair? whatever...
what if the same diversity were applied by occupation? religeon? color of skin? it's still diversity...would that be ok? if not then why place of birth? i'm not asking you to give up what you have by good fortune. just seeking acknowledgement that maybe there is something not quite fair here...
anyway as for this funny accusation on all indian students being H4's, wow you can say anything you want, right?
actually india and china are in teh top 5 receipents of F1 visas, and far ahead of most countries
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableXVII.pdf
now folks. STOP.
you are making me sick.
i'm indian fyi. i'm not techie, i have nothing top do with body shops. and yes i'm a little offended by the streotypical crap.
i do not claim any "best and brightest status" either.
here are my questions:
to the fighting indians: what good is the removal of a country cap on it's own? sure date for india will move a bit and row a little back. but most people will still be stuck because of the annual quota. without increased GC numbers the point of country quotas is moot.
to row warriors: i guess if it benefits you it must be fair. cool. maybe i would have felt the same in your place. but tell me...i came here and did a lot of education. today in EB2 people like me (and even less qualified than me) are walking through with today's PD. i am 10 years away from a GC. any good reason? why am is so bad? so inferior? why am i penalized for my place of birth? fair? whatever...
what if the same diversity were applied by occupation? religeon? color of skin? it's still diversity...would that be ok? if not then why place of birth? i'm not asking you to give up what you have by good fortune. just seeking acknowledgement that maybe there is something not quite fair here...
anyway as for this funny accusation on all indian students being H4's, wow you can say anything you want, right?
actually india and china are in teh top 5 receipents of F1 visas, and far ahead of most countries
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableXVII.pdf
now folks. STOP.
you are making me sick.
more...
makeup flower butterfly tattoo.
krisganta
09-04 10:51 AM
I agree..admin please delete this thread. This has nothing to do with the immigration issues that we are facing.
girlfriend Beauty Rose Foot Tattoo
amslonewolf
04-28 07:01 PM
Matthew Ohs website has it.. Check out immigration-law..
hairstyles Tattoo Infections Can Be
akred
02-15 08:31 PM
According to the UN resolution immigration and naturalization laws do not constitute "racial discrimination" by definition. The quota based system does discriminate against people from China and India. But the law as originally established did not intend to do this.
Nope. Article 1 Paragraph 3 just states that the convention does not apply in those cases. The definition of racial discrimination stands. You should read through the US response to the last review under the CERD (in 2003) and check the responses on immigration policy.
Nope. Article 1 Paragraph 3 just states that the convention does not apply in those cases. The definition of racial discrimination stands. You should read through the US response to the last review under the CERD (in 2003) and check the responses on immigration policy.
akred
02-13 12:36 PM
I think the US government wanted it this way.
Yes. Racial exclusion and preference for European immigration has a long history in US immigration law.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
Yes. Racial exclusion and preference for European immigration has a long history in US immigration law.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
nixstor
07-03 05:23 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
No comments:
Post a Comment