swamy
12-13 10:35 PM
in a nutshell:
an end to retrogression for all
increased GC quota
it does remain though, one of our goals in the package because we believe it is fundamentally unfair and should not be apart of a skilled immigration program.
why is this so hard for ppl to understand!
an end to retrogression for all
increased GC quota
it does remain though, one of our goals in the package because we believe it is fundamentally unfair and should not be apart of a skilled immigration program.
why is this so hard for ppl to understand!
wallpaper South Carolina Gamecocks
Macaca
06-28 10:52 AM
At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office receives a report from each immigrant visa processing post listing totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa applicants in categories subject to numerical limitation.
Cases are grouped by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date. No names are reported. During the first week of each month, this documentarily qualified demand is tabulated.
VO subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations which are specified by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants reported to VO, and the expected INS demand for numbers, are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment. This allows for the determination of the monthly cut-off dates, and the allotment of numbers for reported applicants who have priority dates within the newly established cut-off dates. If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered "current."
This is talking about numbers available for next regular allotment. This number could be the number remaining for current year (which is what I think it is).
It is not saying that there is a monthly/quraterly quota. I have not seen monthly/quarterly quota in any USCIS document but then I have not read most of them.
Cases are grouped by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date. No names are reported. During the first week of each month, this documentarily qualified demand is tabulated.
VO subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations which are specified by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants reported to VO, and the expected INS demand for numbers, are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment. This allows for the determination of the monthly cut-off dates, and the allotment of numbers for reported applicants who have priority dates within the newly established cut-off dates. If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered "current."
This is talking about numbers available for next regular allotment. This number could be the number remaining for current year (which is what I think it is).
It is not saying that there is a monthly/quraterly quota. I have not seen monthly/quarterly quota in any USCIS document but then I have not read most of them.
Kushal
07-27 12:07 PM
I'm not sure but some one did mention this on this forum. It's better if other people can comment on the veracity of this statement.
"..veracity of this statement"
Sure pick up the phone and dial IRS, or call your accountant. Or your lawyer if you want to play it safe.
Other people doesn't do or will never do anything, other then wearing pantyhose and tip toeing through the tulips.
"..veracity of this statement"
Sure pick up the phone and dial IRS, or call your accountant. Or your lawyer if you want to play it safe.
Other people doesn't do or will never do anything, other then wearing pantyhose and tip toeing through the tulips.
2011 South Carolina Gamecocks:
ramus
06-28 08:37 PM
If USCIS do reject application without notice then we should file a big law suite...AILA will be with us..
Folks.
It might be a cruel joke that USCIS plays on us.
They can do whatever they want.
For heaven's sake, lets just accept it, and hope for the best.
Folks.
It might be a cruel joke that USCIS plays on us.
They can do whatever they want.
For heaven's sake, lets just accept it, and hope for the best.
more...
villamonte6100
02-15 12:05 PM
I myself wanted to have my greencard NOW!!!
Unfortunately, I have to wait until there is a visa available.
Whether there is a shortcoming on their law here, as aliens, we should also respect the law just like their citizens.
Congress is the only one who could make changes to their existing laws and if they can't do it, bad luck to us.
Their hands are tied.
USCIS cannot do anything because they are just following the law.
Class action is a very big thing and I've read alot of responses here as if filing for a class action is like going to walmart and complain about a defective item you just bought.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm working for a law firm which gives me some idea how the legal system works.
CLASS ACTION AGAINST USCIS? My god, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Unfortunately, I have to wait until there is a visa available.
Whether there is a shortcoming on their law here, as aliens, we should also respect the law just like their citizens.
Congress is the only one who could make changes to their existing laws and if they can't do it, bad luck to us.
Their hands are tied.
USCIS cannot do anything because they are just following the law.
Class action is a very big thing and I've read alot of responses here as if filing for a class action is like going to walmart and complain about a defective item you just bought.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm working for a law firm which gives me some idea how the legal system works.
CLASS ACTION AGAINST USCIS? My god, you have no idea what you're talking about.
chantu
03-30 02:48 PM
If a Italian citizen controll the major Party of India; why not a Brazilian knows more?:)
Any way I will update soon....
That is the tragedy of India. Except Indians everybody has ruled India and still people have no remorse, no self respect.
Any way I will update soon....
That is the tragedy of India. Except Indians everybody has ruled India and still people have no remorse, no self respect.
more...
snram4
01-16 01:31 PM
Accepting regulations does not mean to prevent Indians to come here. I can tell many examples. There are many bodyshoppers get h1B and make the persons to sit on bench in India or USA. I know some persons come here 1 year after getting h1b. But many reputed companies those who are real need of people could not get H1b as Cap was reduced. Putting restrictions on on bodyshoppers will improve H1b usage and wastage can be eliminated. And will make h1b program legitimate.
Wow so ungrateful.
You make hole in the same vessel you eat.
You came to this country only because of a desi bodyshopper. Otherwise with your qualifications you cannot even dream of coming to USA on your own.
Unless you are IIT or IIM.. or some top engineering college, it is highly difficult for someone to come to USA on H1B and take a permanent job. The other route is to come for studies.
So after coming here by showing your desperation to earn dollars with an NIIT diploma or some shady donation college degree you came via a body shopper. You made a choice in life fully knowing what you are doing. Now you left your bodyshopper and want to hurt him and feel happy for the rule because you do not want others like you to come to US of A via bodyshoppers.
You know why? Because you do not want other Indians to come behind you and compete with you for jobs.
Learn to live and let live. Din't they teach you in India as an Indian value. Good luck with your greencard.
Wow so ungrateful.
You make hole in the same vessel you eat.
You came to this country only because of a desi bodyshopper. Otherwise with your qualifications you cannot even dream of coming to USA on your own.
Unless you are IIT or IIM.. or some top engineering college, it is highly difficult for someone to come to USA on H1B and take a permanent job. The other route is to come for studies.
So after coming here by showing your desperation to earn dollars with an NIIT diploma or some shady donation college degree you came via a body shopper. You made a choice in life fully knowing what you are doing. Now you left your bodyshopper and want to hurt him and feel happy for the rule because you do not want others like you to come to US of A via bodyshoppers.
You know why? Because you do not want other Indians to come behind you and compete with you for jobs.
Learn to live and let live. Din't they teach you in India as an Indian value. Good luck with your greencard.
2010 South Carolina quot;Gamecocksquot;
jetguy777
07-29 12:16 PM
This is Ron Gotcher's view. I am not advocating his position just posting for the benefit of IV members who may have not read his post regarding forward movement in EB2-India.
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.
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.
more...
django.stone
07-24 09:16 PM
If this is indeed true, isn't it unfair to issue visas to Feb 2006 dates at a Consulate while people with 2005 dates are waiting for AOS. Can this be challenged in court?
hair All Gamecock fans are
ujjwal_p
05-11 05:00 PM
I completely agree with you.
As a Tamil, I too carry the Indian passport with shame and can't wait to see the day when I become a US citizen.
Let me be the first to say, all the best to you to get the US citizenship fast... and more importantly good riddance... And all the best for Americans to get a model citizen like you. By the way, I hope you do know about the oath you need to take to become an American. Hope you do that sincerely and are not narrow-minded then.
As a Tamil, I too carry the Indian passport with shame and can't wait to see the day when I become a US citizen.
Let me be the first to say, all the best to you to get the US citizenship fast... and more importantly good riddance... And all the best for Americans to get a model citizen like you. By the way, I hope you do know about the oath you need to take to become an American. Hope you do that sincerely and are not narrow-minded then.
more...
fairman
08-18 09:50 PM
What if you have no profile. I mean if somebody is not even in GC line, he/she can't even post in these forums? What kind of lunatic logic is that?
Please put a profile.
Please put a profile.
hot The Gamecock baseball team is
soljabhai
12-13 10:43 AM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
more...
house George Mason South Carolina
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.
tattoo Baseball amp; Softball Desktop
vdlrao
07-15 10:54 PM
vdlrao,
True Eb2 will move and would not retrogress taking the new FY as a whole..but it becoming current by next Oct is a bit far fetched.
Remember in the first quarter of FY07 EB2 was U with all 01, 02, 03, and Jan-Mar 04 (mostly 03 as 01 and 02 were current for long and didn't have many in the labor backlog centers) used all the numbers. With several EB2's issued during the fiasco + 1st and 3rd quarter and into the 4th quarter, we are now slowly seeing everything till Mar 04 cleared up. It took almost a year to have 03 cleared up.
And you guess is 04-08 would get cleared in another year :p hard to believe!
04-08 would get cleared in another year ? : u may be righ IntheMoment. In 05 there are very less cases.
so there are 06 and 07 & 08. I presume even thugh it wont be current then the PD will be 1 or 1 and half year delay.
True Eb2 will move and would not retrogress taking the new FY as a whole..but it becoming current by next Oct is a bit far fetched.
Remember in the first quarter of FY07 EB2 was U with all 01, 02, 03, and Jan-Mar 04 (mostly 03 as 01 and 02 were current for long and didn't have many in the labor backlog centers) used all the numbers. With several EB2's issued during the fiasco + 1st and 3rd quarter and into the 4th quarter, we are now slowly seeing everything till Mar 04 cleared up. It took almost a year to have 03 cleared up.
And you guess is 04-08 would get cleared in another year :p hard to believe!
04-08 would get cleared in another year ? : u may be righ IntheMoment. In 05 there are very less cases.
so there are 06 and 07 & 08. I presume even thugh it wont be current then the PD will be 1 or 1 and half year delay.
more...
pictures Baseball amp; Softball Desktop
thepaew
05-29 09:06 AM
As far as i can tell, the main issue is that there are not enough visas for Indian applicants. The possible EB1 misuse is a sideshow.
Currently, the EB2-I wait time is 20+ years. Even if there are no EB1 applications the wait time would reduce to 10+ years. EB3-I wait time is probably more than the life span of most individuals.
Currently, the EB2-I wait time is 20+ years. Even if there are no EB1 applications the wait time would reduce to 10+ years. EB3-I wait time is probably more than the life span of most individuals.
dresses South Carolina Light Duty
Circus123
02-14 01:03 PM
You are eligible to apply on the first business day of March 2008.( which is 1st ) until the last business day of March 2008 (Monday March 31st)I wouldn't wait for March end if I were you ...
more...
makeup South Carolina Gamecocks
taarine
07-21 05:02 PM
Folks, let's not stereotype desis or any particular race. I ran into this Malaysian couple of Chinese descent who approached my wife and I at IKEA in the Chicago area. They tried some of the same techniques as described in this thread...
I was very surprised and confused because we had no connection in terms of race, native language, or look. I am hard core - lungi-dhari desi :) So you see it's the Amway/Quixtar/BWW culture and nothing to do with any race, regionalism or language. My $0.2
I was very surprised and confused because we had no connection in terms of race, native language, or look. I am hard core - lungi-dhari desi :) So you see it's the Amway/Quixtar/BWW culture and nothing to do with any race, regionalism or language. My $0.2
girlfriend South Carolina Gamecocks
tikka
07-03 11:16 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
hairstyles SOUTH CAROLINA GAMECOCKS
jaane_bhi_do_yaaro
08-18 10:20 PM
This is not "Indian" thread. It is purely a North Indian thread. He is popular only in North of India.
I doubt that he is popular in North India only.
VDL Rao is popular in North India despite hailing from AP.
Similarly SRK is equally popular in South India.
I doubt that he is popular in North India only.
VDL Rao is popular in North India despite hailing from AP.
Similarly SRK is equally popular in South India.
sroyc
02-12 08:44 PM
I don't think Abhijit chose the right analogy, so your response to that makes sense.
India and China are not sending multiple skilled-immigrant teams to the US. They have come here on their own either to work or study and they are being hired by American companies on the basis of merit, same as everyone else.
Other than the fact that there is a large talent pool of high-tech workers in India and China, there's nothing that stops them for hiring more skilled immigrants from other countries.
If the US truly believes in a quota system for employment based immigration, it should reflect in the workforce first. Enforce the quota system while issuing F1/H1 visas. Then you will also ensure true diversity (only among immigrants) in the workforce.
What you have is two classes of immigrant workers in the same company - those who belong to retrogressed categories and those who are not, with similar qualifications and with similar roles. The difference is that in a few years, the workers who get the green card sooner will have the ability to pursue other opportunities while the other class of workers grind away. With the current scenario, a future colleague from a ROW country can join 6-8 years after me and still get the green card ahead of me. How can you say that it is not discrimination?
If you remove the per country quota, the ROW candidates might have to wait for 3 years instead of 1, but the Indian/Chinese candidates will have to wait for 3 years instead of 8-10. I don't think removing the per country quota will harm ROW folks as much as it'll benefit Indians and Chinese AND it'll ensure fairness.
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
India and China are not sending multiple skilled-immigrant teams to the US. They have come here on their own either to work or study and they are being hired by American companies on the basis of merit, same as everyone else.
Other than the fact that there is a large talent pool of high-tech workers in India and China, there's nothing that stops them for hiring more skilled immigrants from other countries.
If the US truly believes in a quota system for employment based immigration, it should reflect in the workforce first. Enforce the quota system while issuing F1/H1 visas. Then you will also ensure true diversity (only among immigrants) in the workforce.
What you have is two classes of immigrant workers in the same company - those who belong to retrogressed categories and those who are not, with similar qualifications and with similar roles. The difference is that in a few years, the workers who get the green card sooner will have the ability to pursue other opportunities while the other class of workers grind away. With the current scenario, a future colleague from a ROW country can join 6-8 years after me and still get the green card ahead of me. How can you say that it is not discrimination?
If you remove the per country quota, the ROW candidates might have to wait for 3 years instead of 1, but the Indian/Chinese candidates will have to wait for 3 years instead of 8-10. I don't think removing the per country quota will harm ROW folks as much as it'll benefit Indians and Chinese AND it'll ensure fairness.
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
sledge_hammer
01-14 02:01 PM
A vrey very valid point!
don't you think. AC21 (the famous Yates Memo) is also a memo. People expect USCIS to follow it though.... :o
don't you think. AC21 (the famous Yates Memo) is also a memo. People expect USCIS to follow it though.... :o
No comments:
Post a Comment