samay
07-14 07:12 AM
Is there certain minimum numbers of days one has to stay with the sponsoring company after getting the Green Card.
In my case I have been working with my current employer since Sept-2001 (almost 7 years).
Green card labor started in Dec-2001 and I-485 was filed in May and approved June, 2008.
I was in the middle of using AC21 just before my GC got approved, hence this urgency.
It is normally recommended to work with the sponsoring company for at least 6 months.
In my case I have been working with my current employer since Sept-2001 (almost 7 years).
Green card labor started in Dec-2001 and I-485 was filed in May and approved June, 2008.
I was in the middle of using AC21 just before my GC got approved, hence this urgency.
It is normally recommended to work with the sponsoring company for at least 6 months.
wallpaper The Origin of Planking: First
dilipcr
06-11 08:50 PM
Makes sense now. Peace.
Now to prove my point that we had all of today's similar issues then. Here is my after GC post.
http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=84252
I hope you people wouldn't simply jump to a conclusion that I was lucky. I went through all the travails of layoffs, GC backlogs etc.
Peace !!
Now to prove my point that we had all of today's similar issues then. Here is my after GC post.
http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=84252
I hope you people wouldn't simply jump to a conclusion that I was lucky. I went through all the travails of layoffs, GC backlogs etc.
Peace !!
vinzen
08-18 11:35 PM
I think you think too much...by the way this is how you communicate in your office. American would think twice even come near to you...Good defence...:D
hasnt happened yet. if it ever did, I will change my ways...slumdog.
hasnt happened yet. if it ever did, I will change my ways...slumdog.
2011 Planking (fad)
conchshell
06-14 12:43 PM
Dilip,
There are no excuses. You are closing the doors behind and trying to forget the path you came through.
Protectionalism comes from the mere thinking that, some deserve a better and easier life just because they happen to be "born" at some place, or because they happen to be there "earlier", and don't want to be threatened by smarter / hardworking humanity.
Great thoughts. At least there are some on this alias who can think different from all others who are trying to stand on high pseudo moral values, when the basis of their standing up is nothing else but only and only their own self interest.
Have you ever thought about the millions and millions of Bangladeshi immigrants who jump Indian border's to find a job and to feed their families. How many of us apply the same moral values to immigration policies in India. Or does it ever bother you to support India student's suffering in Australia.
So only if you have clarity of thoughts on all these issues, and you support immigration no matter what country you talk about, you have a right to complain about the US immigration policies. Otherwise, tomorrow when domestic market surge in India, you will be the first one, complaining about a low cost engineer coming out from a Nepal or Bangaladesh university.
There are no excuses. You are closing the doors behind and trying to forget the path you came through.
Protectionalism comes from the mere thinking that, some deserve a better and easier life just because they happen to be "born" at some place, or because they happen to be there "earlier", and don't want to be threatened by smarter / hardworking humanity.
Great thoughts. At least there are some on this alias who can think different from all others who are trying to stand on high pseudo moral values, when the basis of their standing up is nothing else but only and only their own self interest.
Have you ever thought about the millions and millions of Bangladeshi immigrants who jump Indian border's to find a job and to feed their families. How many of us apply the same moral values to immigration policies in India. Or does it ever bother you to support India student's suffering in Australia.
So only if you have clarity of thoughts on all these issues, and you support immigration no matter what country you talk about, you have a right to complain about the US immigration policies. Otherwise, tomorrow when domestic market surge in India, you will be the first one, complaining about a low cost engineer coming out from a Nepal or Bangaladesh university.
more...
dingudi
02-15 04:38 PM
The reason we have greater supply of workforce in IT from one specific country is not because of skills or talents. Almost every IT workers from ROW and China came to the US as a foreign student after TOEFL, GMAT, GRE, internship and only then landed a job in IT. Whereas the preponderence of IT workers from India came here through L1/B1/H1 sponsorship through bodyshops. Attending school, preparing for generalized tests requires time, money and patience. This is one big factor why the supply curve is skewed.
I am an Indian and also came as a student giving GRE/TOEFL. So do not generalize that IT workers from India came here via L1/B1 route. Some of them did but some did not. I know lot of Indian who came here to study.
If India is producing more people qualified in these skills then its not their fault.
I am an Indian and also came as a student giving GRE/TOEFL. So do not generalize that IT workers from India came here via L1/B1 route. Some of them did but some did not. I know lot of Indian who came here to study.
If India is producing more people qualified in these skills then its not their fault.
485_spouse
07-17 04:47 PM
Sorry she will have to wait for the your PD to get current.
Thank you, Sir/Madam.
485_spouse
Thank you, Sir/Madam.
485_spouse
more...
paskal
12-13 12:02 PM
as always Mark!
There may or may not be constitution grounds to challenge the law, I've thought about this too, however from a pragmatic point of view....
1) The money needed to pay the lawyers would likely be more than for lobbying. Importantly money for legal costs is best to be on hand -- i.e. good cash flow, otherwise you risk missing legal deadlines. It would mean diverting money from lobbying. If we were flush with cash e.g. every member paid just $100 per year this would work.
2) Even among members of congress that are behind us, several have reservations about removing country cap (although they are willing to raise it).
3) EB3 ROW is retrogressed anyway. India EB3 is about May 2001, and ROW EB3 Oct 2002. The effect of only removing country quota would be put EB3 generally at about Oct 2001.
The way to move forward for all is to increase total through put, e.g. raise caps, remove dependents from caps, recapture unused quota, tie caps to multiple of H1B quota. For ROW it would move steadily forward, and India move and then would jump forward every 4th quarter with massive spill over from ROW.
As I said I'm not against the idea in principle, just being pragmatic.
There may or may not be constitution grounds to challenge the law, I've thought about this too, however from a pragmatic point of view....
1) The money needed to pay the lawyers would likely be more than for lobbying. Importantly money for legal costs is best to be on hand -- i.e. good cash flow, otherwise you risk missing legal deadlines. It would mean diverting money from lobbying. If we were flush with cash e.g. every member paid just $100 per year this would work.
2) Even among members of congress that are behind us, several have reservations about removing country cap (although they are willing to raise it).
3) EB3 ROW is retrogressed anyway. India EB3 is about May 2001, and ROW EB3 Oct 2002. The effect of only removing country quota would be put EB3 generally at about Oct 2001.
The way to move forward for all is to increase total through put, e.g. raise caps, remove dependents from caps, recapture unused quota, tie caps to multiple of H1B quota. For ROW it would move steadily forward, and India move and then would jump forward every 4th quarter with massive spill over from ROW.
As I said I'm not against the idea in principle, just being pragmatic.
2010 Dangerous planking: These two
user1205
02-12 01:37 PM
As far as I know the country quotas are followed only in the first 3 quarters of the year. Last year a lot of numbers were used for India/China in the June/July fiasco and ROW used less than the yearly quota. India had I think 3 times the yearly quota in those months. So they're trying to use up as much as they can for ROW this year I guess.
I have the same question. State dept moves the date just so that the visa numbers are used for that category. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed".
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
I have the same question. State dept moves the date just so that the visa numbers are used for that category. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed".
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
more...
alisa
06-27 10:00 PM
Yes I agree.. But if they don't move date foward then they can't approve those backlog applications.And they don't want to loose 40,000 visas . Now when they made all date current, they can approve all those pending application which are complete and just waiting for date to become current. Now we don't know real number and don't know how long it will take USCIS to do all approvals. But if they approve 40,000 in 2 weeks, I won't be surprised if they make it 'U' like other workers.
But then question still remains why they made all current. They could have just moved it by year or so.. And I am sure they know how many application they can expect in July.. I already saw some where that we have around more then 80,000 approved perm.. All they going to apply.. And what about all whose labor just got approved fro Backlog centers?
Its making everybody confused.. But its not in our hand and we can't do anything. Best thing is to file asap and just hope for best and we are always ready for worst..
Just think if they make date 'U' in middle of july, how many member going to loose money. Each of us spent so much money this month and if nothing happens that we loose all of it.
Are you sure about 80000 PERM?
I recall seeing somewhere that for the entire 2006, there were about 6000 PERMs.
But then question still remains why they made all current. They could have just moved it by year or so.. And I am sure they know how many application they can expect in July.. I already saw some where that we have around more then 80,000 approved perm.. All they going to apply.. And what about all whose labor just got approved fro Backlog centers?
Its making everybody confused.. But its not in our hand and we can't do anything. Best thing is to file asap and just hope for best and we are always ready for worst..
Just think if they make date 'U' in middle of july, how many member going to loose money. Each of us spent so much money this month and if nothing happens that we loose all of it.
Are you sure about 80000 PERM?
I recall seeing somewhere that for the entire 2006, there were about 6000 PERMs.
hair The planking fad appears to be
user1205
02-14 11:28 AM
I love that idea but too late now :)
ahh, let us take this one step further, and start a "send candy hearts to USCIS" campaign :)
ahh, let us take this one step further, and start a "send candy hearts to USCIS" campaign :)
more...
samay
08-25 02:54 PM
Hi,
I have an approved H1B petition, but was given 221(g) during consular interview due to lack of license to practice my proffession in US. They instructed me to submit the license within one year to stamp the H1B visa.
Now I am comming to US on a Visitors visa to write the licensing exam and to get licenced.
I am aware of the possibility of changing status from Visitors visa to H1B after getting licence without leaving US, since I already have an approved H1B.
But I came to know that USCIS will take around 90 days to approve status change from Visitors visa to H1B.
Kindly clarify whether I can start working for my H1B employer immediately after filing status change with USCIS, or do I need to wait till the approval, to start working.
Also do I need to include 221(g) I received after my H1B consulate interveiw for the status change application.
Thank you very much in advance...
You cannot start working till you get your H-1 B stamped. I think you misunderstood what the consular officer said to you. Please see a good attorney before you start working or contact me.
I have an approved H1B petition, but was given 221(g) during consular interview due to lack of license to practice my proffession in US. They instructed me to submit the license within one year to stamp the H1B visa.
Now I am comming to US on a Visitors visa to write the licensing exam and to get licenced.
I am aware of the possibility of changing status from Visitors visa to H1B after getting licence without leaving US, since I already have an approved H1B.
But I came to know that USCIS will take around 90 days to approve status change from Visitors visa to H1B.
Kindly clarify whether I can start working for my H1B employer immediately after filing status change with USCIS, or do I need to wait till the approval, to start working.
Also do I need to include 221(g) I received after my H1B consulate interveiw for the status change application.
Thank you very much in advance...
You cannot start working till you get your H-1 B stamped. I think you misunderstood what the consular officer said to you. Please see a good attorney before you start working or contact me.
hot Planking…the lastest fad
Rohan99
07-27 12:46 PM
United States Secretary of Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano can help you.
I am extremely interested in this business. Can somebody please refer me, I am in LA?
I am extremely interested in this business. Can somebody please refer me, I am in LA?
more...
house on the #39;planking#39; fad.
newtoearth
05-02 09:11 AM
...
tattoo Send in your planking pictures
mantric
12-13 12:36 PM
Here's the percentages of the top 10 populations of the world by nationality. How many of them are more than 7% ?
China 20.0 %
India 17.2 %
United States 4.6 %
Indonesia 3.4 %
Brazil 2.8 %
Pakistan 2.6 %
Nigeria 2.5 %
Russia 2.2 %
Bangladesh 2.1 %
Japan 2.0 %
Based on this one can conclude that the 7% nationality rule is a veiled effort to limit Indian and Chinese immigrants specifically. Does this not amount to discrimination by nationality ? In addition we as legal immigrants are taxed without any representation. Taxation without representation was the reason the US was created in the first place.
US history is full of examples where discrimination existed in one form or another and these discriminations were sucessfully challenged. A few examples are women's voting rights, minority voting rights and gerrymandering. These are good examples to study where the affected people had no legal voice to begin with.
The civil rights movement is a recent example. There were existing laws that limited people from voting based on their literacy levels in the southern states. The literacy requirement for voting was really a thinly veiled attempt to limit voting rights of african americans for as long as possible. The civil rights movement was about changing these artificial laws to give voting rights to people who legally had no voice.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_c.htm
You don't need to be a lawyer to speak up for your hardships as a law abiding resident. This country has tremendous protections for people living here which is what makes it great. We as an immigrant community need to build our awareness of US history and government if we expect things to change.
China 20.0 %
India 17.2 %
United States 4.6 %
Indonesia 3.4 %
Brazil 2.8 %
Pakistan 2.6 %
Nigeria 2.5 %
Russia 2.2 %
Bangladesh 2.1 %
Japan 2.0 %
Based on this one can conclude that the 7% nationality rule is a veiled effort to limit Indian and Chinese immigrants specifically. Does this not amount to discrimination by nationality ? In addition we as legal immigrants are taxed without any representation. Taxation without representation was the reason the US was created in the first place.
US history is full of examples where discrimination existed in one form or another and these discriminations were sucessfully challenged. A few examples are women's voting rights, minority voting rights and gerrymandering. These are good examples to study where the affected people had no legal voice to begin with.
The civil rights movement is a recent example. There were existing laws that limited people from voting based on their literacy levels in the southern states. The literacy requirement for voting was really a thinly veiled attempt to limit voting rights of african americans for as long as possible. The civil rights movement was about changing these artificial laws to give voting rights to people who legally had no voice.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_c.htm
You don't need to be a lawyer to speak up for your hardships as a law abiding resident. This country has tremendous protections for people living here which is what makes it great. We as an immigrant community need to build our awareness of US history and government if we expect things to change.
more...
pictures hairstyles the fad planking is
snathan
01-17 10:18 AM
Even if it is ok to fight how much resource IV have it to fight multiple issues. Resource means not just money but also time, manpower and effort. Most of the issues can be resolved if EB reform is done as people need not renew H1b as most can get GC within 3 years. Law clearly tells that there should be valid job position for H1b at the time of filing. For consulting bodyshoppers will bring persons here and search for job. That is clearly violation of law.
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
Can you just shut up and get lost....which law is saying that. give us the reference.
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
Can you just shut up and get lost....which law is saying that. give us the reference.
dresses New Fad: Planking
easygoer
07-23 01:51 PM
vldrao has done good job and we are thankful to him
more...
makeup Planking fad not
India_USA
06-15 10:13 AM
Predicting visa bulletins is a futile effort. We should find a constructive way of passing our time that will actually bring about some changes.
Just my thoughts......
Just my thoughts......
girlfriend random fad, planking is a
extra_mint
09-15 06:10 PM
There are no Spill over rules for splitting the visa's b/w I and C. Instead the Rule about spill over requires the PD (cutoff) for 2 countries to be same.
Infact if you look at any old VB (last quarter) where dates for China and India are same then that is the month for spill overs.
Cutoff for China will never advance India dates for spill overs.
There are 2.5 EB2-I application per EB2-C application. And EB2 China had cutoff dates of early 2005 in 2009 (they did not enjoy too much spillover in 2009). So my guess it that China will use its 3k annual limit + spillover numbers (depending on how much EB2-C dates move). The spillover would be split 25% china and 75% India.
Infact if you look at any old VB (last quarter) where dates for China and India are same then that is the month for spill overs.
Cutoff for China will never advance India dates for spill overs.
There are 2.5 EB2-I application per EB2-C application. And EB2 China had cutoff dates of early 2005 in 2009 (they did not enjoy too much spillover in 2009). So my guess it that China will use its 3k annual limit + spillover numbers (depending on how much EB2-C dates move). The spillover would be split 25% china and 75% India.
hairstyles PLANKING: the photo fad has
senthil1
06-15 04:53 PM
H1b cap is 65k+ 20K for US master degree and remaining are exemptions. Total approimately 125K were issued on 2007.
"H1B numbers were 125K in 2007"
Holly cow ! I always thought H1B cap is set to 65K (except for a few years in early 2000) :-)
The 125K which you mentioned is popularly used by anti-immigrant lobbys to push their argument. It includes all H1B transfers NOT only the fresh H1.
So, if X get his H1 in 2006 and change to a new company in 2007 , you will count X against 2006 as well as 2007 giving a false number. However, if X applies for a GC, it is not 2X applying for GC --- just X .
Recapture bill will help a lot in clearing the backlog. For future EB GC, if the dependents are not counted for immigrant visa, it will be much cleaner. Not all L1 and H1 apply for GC. Mostly the major Indian IT companies DO NOT sponsor GC (and as you know they are the major users of L1).
"H1B numbers were 125K in 2007"
Holly cow ! I always thought H1B cap is set to 65K (except for a few years in early 2000) :-)
The 125K which you mentioned is popularly used by anti-immigrant lobbys to push their argument. It includes all H1B transfers NOT only the fresh H1.
So, if X get his H1 in 2006 and change to a new company in 2007 , you will count X against 2006 as well as 2007 giving a false number. However, if X applies for a GC, it is not 2X applying for GC --- just X .
Recapture bill will help a lot in clearing the backlog. For future EB GC, if the dependents are not counted for immigrant visa, it will be much cleaner. Not all L1 and H1 apply for GC. Mostly the major Indian IT companies DO NOT sponsor GC (and as you know they are the major users of L1).
Ramba
12-14 12:19 AM
One cannot challange the content of the INA. Immigration is a privilage not a right. US citizens/lawmakers decides who they or how many they want to allow per year through INA. One can not challange this. For example, before 1960, US allowed only europians not asians. Though, US immigration has a history of 200 years, Indians were not allowed before 1960 in EB catagories. One could not challange then. Tommorow if they amend the INA, by saying no asians allowed in EB catagories, one cannot challange that.
One can challage only if any branch of government violates the law. One can not challange why the law do not have some other provision or why it has only 7%?. It was determiend by congress and signed by president. For example, in H1B, they have special quota for Singapore/Australian nationals. One can not question that. Now, Newzland citizes can not ask/sue, why australians and why not newzlanders in special quota? The same situation in GC system.
There is no ethics/rights in immigration. For example, a janitor/unskilled worker can become citizen after 3 years of LPR(GC) status if his/her spouse is a US citizen and he/she got the GC thro US spouse FB sponsership. At the same time, if a nobel prize winner got GC through EB1 catagory, he/she has to wait 5 years to become citizen after LPR status. This is what the law says. So, this nobel prize winner can not sue the government why the INA is not favorable to him.
One can challage only if any branch of government violates the law. One can not challange why the law do not have some other provision or why it has only 7%?. It was determiend by congress and signed by president. For example, in H1B, they have special quota for Singapore/Australian nationals. One can not question that. Now, Newzland citizes can not ask/sue, why australians and why not newzlanders in special quota? The same situation in GC system.
There is no ethics/rights in immigration. For example, a janitor/unskilled worker can become citizen after 3 years of LPR(GC) status if his/her spouse is a US citizen and he/she got the GC thro US spouse FB sponsership. At the same time, if a nobel prize winner got GC through EB1 catagory, he/she has to wait 5 years to become citizen after LPR status. This is what the law says. So, this nobel prize winner can not sue the government why the INA is not favorable to him.
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.
