Printable View
I think it matters because not all regional campuses are created equal. UCLA and UC-Berkeley are close in terms of reputation..The other UCs also have strong research program. But if you flip to the other coast, HUGE difference between Rutgers-New Brunswick campus and Rutgers-Newark campus.Quote:
Originally Posted by ggk189
In one of the articles, I saw that 30%, 50% and 70% are for H1, L1 employers where green card petition is not filed. So, if that is filed, it does not remain restrictive. Am I right or have I missed something?Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
That is correct I believe. That is how I understood it too. And when they say "Green card petition filed", I assume it is I-140.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
You are correct. One of the articles I posted mentioned that Facebook lobbied for that exclusion. Apparently 15% of FB employee's are on H1Bs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
yep, in one of the links on this boards, this was referred as Facebook lobbied amendment. if you have application filed, it wont be counted against Visa dependent calculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
now, some co's anyway apply GC/EB3 so they may get by just by pushing papers.
I totally admit I have lost track of all the posts, so sorry if this repetition. If it is, let me know and I will delete the post.
I don't recall anyone mentioning the ability to re-validate visas in the USA and not have to travel for a visa stamping.
The section on page 666 seems to allow that for qualifying applicants.
Quote:
(c) VISA REVALIDATION.—
Section 222(c) (8 U.S.C. 1202(c)) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Every alien’’;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) The Secretary of State may, at the Secretary’s discretion, renew in the United States the visa of an alien admitted under subparagraph (A), (E), (G), (H), (I), (L), 11 (N), (O), (P), (R), or (W) section 101(a)(15) if the alien has remained eligible for such status and qualifies for a waiver of interview as provided for in subsection (h)(1)(D).’’.
feedmyback,Quote:
Originally Posted by feedmyback
On page 686 it is defined as:
Quote:
(f) INTENDING IMMIGRANTS DEFINED.—
Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(53)(A) The term ‘intending immigrant’ means, with respect to the number of aliens employed by an employer, an alien who intends to work and reside permanently in the United States, as evidenced by—
‘‘(i) for a covered employer, an approved application for a labor certification or an application that has been pending for longer than 1 year; or
‘‘(ii) a pending or approved immigrant status petition filed for such alien.
Spec - that's exactly what happened with me....
I guess what will be useful for everybody is for one or two among us need to take a lead and open a thread with static header that keeps updating on what the bill is and isn't.
My experience is that that is the best way to update people. Otherwise everybody gets completely lost in the discussion. Too much time spent on too little real information.
Wonder who are leaders / experts on this thread (of course other than you Spec) - Rupen? GS1968? ABCX? Justvisiting? Sorry if I missed somebody. But consider this style of updating people. Because over time all of our posts get lost except if you keep updating the headers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Good idea. Unfortunately I am no expert in interpreting legalese! I can keep a list of news links along with short snippets/summaries updated.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Thanks Spec! I don't believe that was reported before and is great news indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I think it might be a chicken and egg issue for H1B/H4. Do you have to go overseas for the interview or do you have to interview because you are overseas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Sorry if I am misunderstood. But your reaction matches as reply to my post.
MHO- History and hence back log is very important for any future applicant and employer and also to the industry if needs to attract skilled workers.
As the number quota becomes high and clearing back log in matter of months due to CIR, expect that future demand will rise for sure.
It acts as catalyst to growth.
" skilled workers who earlier were not willing to wait for about 10 years will come back again"
Main AIM of CIR for legal workers is to improve demand for skilled workers and provide atractive environment and clearing backlog is the fist setp
somtimes this rise in demand(and hiring pattern) is proactive and not afterwards- This is what I am trying to say
Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
viz,Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
I didn't want to post huge excerpts.
You have to meet the requirements of
It can also be found on page 666.Quote:
(d) INTERVIEW WAIVERS FOR LOW RISK VISA APPLICANTS.
Ooh then even an approved labor or a pending labor for more than an year would do...No need to have I-140 filed or approved. Thanks Spec.
What does that mean? Can you explain whether people from India on h1 would qualify ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Someone needs to go through multiple pages here, prepare draft summary which designated people can update and discuss and finally be posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
bill explained from fragomen
http://www.fragomen.com/newsresource...erts&news=2087
Pedro - I will wait till tomorrow before I create my spot - simply because I think there are quite a few others who have studied it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
There is a popular theme running on trackitt right now. Someone brought up the point, that on the day after CIR passes, people currently on H1-B working on client site as consultants( belonging to all shades of consulting, big4, indian IT biggies, minor Indian IT consulting) will go into "out-of-status", as their work situation will be deemed illegal by CIR, due to violation of H1-B.
What do you guys think of this ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjbj
fear mongering. what is the basis for being in violation?
The outplacement provision, that no H1-B can be placed at a third party site( consulting model)Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
is there a provision in the bill. i've looked at it fairly closely and i haven't seen anything that makes that statement. Besides even they have something like they usually grandfather in existing folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjbj
Check out Page 684 of CIR Bill, this is is for H1-B dependent employers. Most of the Indian IT consulting companies, big & small might be H1-B dependent.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
(d) OUTPLACEMENT.—Section 212(n)(1)(F) (8
11 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
12 ‘‘(F)(i) An H-1B-dependent employer may
13 not place, outsource, lease, or otherwise con14
tract for the services or placement of an H–1B
15 nonimmigrant employee.
16 ‘‘(ii) An employer that is not an H-1B-de17
pendent employer and not described in para18
graph (3)(A)(i) may not place, outsource, lease,
19 or otherwise contract for the services or place20
ment of an H–1B nonimmigrant employee un21
less the employer pays a fee of $500.
22 ‘‘(iii) A fee collected under clause (ii) shall
23 be deposited in the Comprehensive Immigration
24 Reform Trust Fund established under section 6
685
EAS13500 S.L.C.
1 of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity,
2 and Immigration Modernization Act.’’.
"Outplacement" refers to placement agencies where the sponsoring company gets a cut of the h1bs pay. it does not apply to cases where the H1b is a real employee and gets paid a salary from the sponsoring company regardless of placement.Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjbj
also, its illegal only if its a "h1b dependent company" otherwise the company needs to pay $500 per H1b employee.
500 is not big amount. I do not know if it is one time amount or have to be paid regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
How is H1B dependent category defined? If filing PERM or I140 is the exemption, then that's what companies will do.
pages 684 to 687 describe all of that. my brain is fried at this point to make sense of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
vizcard,
In you Summary on page 1, you say the following:
That is not my understanding.Quote:
- EB is essentially being replaced by a 2-track, merit-based system (starting cap is 220k with provision to increase or decrease) SEE p.256 onwards
Neither FB 203(a) or EB 203(b) are being replaced.
Instead the current Diversity Visa 201(e) & 203(c) is being replaced by the Merit Based system. The 120,000 visas are made up of a combination of the existing Diversity Visas (55,000) and the abolition of FB4 (65,000).
201(e) currently says:
and is replaced (page 256) :Quote:
(e) Worldwide level of diversity immigrants.- The worldwide level of diversity immigrants is equal to 55,000 for each fiscal year.
to become:Quote:
SEC. 2301. MERIT-BASED POINTS TRACK ONE.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—
6 (1) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMGRANTS.—
Section 201(e) (8 U.S.C. 1151(e)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(e) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—
etc
203(c) currently says:Quote:
(e) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
(A) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.—
Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the worldwide level of merit-based immigrants is equal to 120,000 for each fiscal year.
etc.
The text on page 258 modifies that to become:Quote:
(c) Diversity Immigrants. -
(1) In general. - Except as provided in paragraph (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201 (e) for diversity immigrants shall be allotted visas each fiscal year as follows:
etc.
Eventually, this section describes the requirement to qualify for a Merit Based visa.Quote:
(c) MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—
(1) FISCAL YEARS 1 THROUGH 4.—
For the first 4 fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, the worldwide level of merit-based immigrant visas made available under section 201(e)(1) shall be available for aliens described in section 203(b)(3) and in addition to any visas available for such aliens under such section.
etc.
In my mind, the Merit Based system is replacing the Diversity Visa (and includes provisions helpful to the FB4 Siblings Category eliminated from FB immigration).
You are probably right. But I don't think its just a replacement for DV/F4 or inclusion of illegals. So if I understand correctly then, total numbers
EB - 140K
FB - 480K
Merit-based - 120K
Doesn't seem right. But maybe it is.
Vizcard,Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
My understanding is:
FB - Initially, the current minimum of 226k remains (and FB2A is gone), but this reduces to 161k 18 months after enactment as the FB4 visas are removed.
EB - 140,000 (plus 10,000 for EB6? - not sure how that works), but EB1 approvals no longer count against this number, together with EB2B.
Merit Based (Track One) - 120,000 which can rise as high as 250,000 over time (subject to conditions and demand), but not by more than 5% per year.
Another thing I noticed - EB2 now only gets Fall Down from EB5 automatically, not that it should matter. Mention of EB4 has been removed.
EB4 now get any visas unused by EB3Quote:
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 40 percent of the worldwide level authorized in section 201(d), plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (5), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent ........
EB5 now get any visas unused by EB4.
Overall, it becomes:
EB2 --> EB3 ---> EB4 ---> EB5
_^________________________ |
_|________________________ |
__-------------------------
My reading of the INVEST Act part of the bill is that EB-6 lives in it´s own little world, with 10,000 visas that are not part of the 140K for EB, and that can't receive nor give spillover. It sure looks like it was copy-pasted into the bill and they did a cursory check to make sure it didn't conflict with anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
There are other technical errors in the bill for example, one section removes the FB-2A category making it IR, and reallocates those visas among FB-1, 2-B, 3 and 4. And then a subsequent section of the bill removes FB-3 and FB-4, making the prior section completely superfluous!
justvisiting,Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
I agree with you!
They create an EB6 Category and then don't tie it into the other EB legislation properly.
I think the problem with the FB side is that FB2A disappears immediately, but FB4 does not disappear for 18 months, so they have to have % for those first 18 months and then replace them with new ones when FB4 is no longer there.
Another classic is the definition of a "United States doctoral institution of higher education" in the EB2B section. That's all well and good, but that term is not actually used anywhere else in the document.
Yet another one is in Section 2302 (c)(3)(B) where the criteria appear incomplete because of the hanging "and"
The next line is 2302 (d). Either there is no "and" or some text is missing.Quote:
(B) has been lawfully present in the United States for not less than 10 years; and
I'm sure you have other examples as well.
Having said the above, it must have been a nightmare for the staff trying to write this document. I don't underestimate the task they had.
Friends ,
I have updated my header post http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...4767#post34767 . I am quite confident of what I have written there. But criticism is welcome!
To Spec/Q/justvisiting & others
In your reading of the CIR Bill-do the Irish E-3 visa holders qualify for Green Cards either under the EB Program or merit track?
I feel like I did last year that it is unfair to single out certain nations for preferential treatment. Also does it have any changes to the TN visa?
gs1968 - my take on E3 Irish bill has always been that it was meant to disrupt then CIR talks rather than being a serious bill. I would be surprised if it is part of CIR now. I haven't come across it.
As per TN visas I didn't find anything that talks about TN.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
The E3 visa is a non-immigrant category, so I guess either option is open to them for an immigrant visa.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Page 734.
Quote:
SEC. 4403. E–VISA REFORM.
(a) NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY.—
Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, or solely to perform services as an employee and who has at least a high school education or its equivalent, or has, within 5 years, at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of training or experience if the alien is a national of the Republic of Ireland,’’ after ‘‘Australia’’.
Thanks Spec - in other words Irish people will get an H1B equivalent but non-immigrant work visa under CIR (just like australians). The max visas will be 10500 per year under this category.
This is kind of same as TN visa .... but TN visa is more specific to CAanada and Mexico. Whereas this is meant for Australia and Ireland now (if CIR is passed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
As you say, Australia already have an E3 visa INA 101 (15)(E)(iii).
This adds it for Ireland, but with a much lower qualification threshold (a High School Education or a job requiring 2 years training) than that for Australia (specialty occupation).Quote:
(E) an alien entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national, and the spouse and children of any such alien if accompanying or following to join him:
(iii) solely to perform services in a specialty occupation in the United States if the alien is a national of the Commonwealth of Australia and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an attestation under section 212(t)(1) ;
If passed, it becomes:
The numbers available would be 10,500 for each Country in E3.Quote:
(iii) solely to perform services in a specialty occupation in the United States if the alien is a national of the Commonwealth of Australia, or solely to perform services as
an employee and who has at least a high school education or its equivalent, or has, within 5 years, at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of training or experience if the alien is a national of the Republic of Ireland, and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an attestation under section 212(t)(1) ;
Essentially it just hands the Republic of Ireland 10.5k E3 visas, that have no qualification criteria at all.Quote:
(c) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.—
Section 214(g)(11)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)(B)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘for each of the nationalities identified under section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii).’’.
To Q/Spec
Thanks for the prompt response.Even though it is non-immigrant it is renewable every 2 years indefinitely (atleast the Australian E-3) and can also be done from within the US. Spouses can also work without restrictions but not children. Also I think if they stay here for 10 years or longer they may get additional merit points towards immigration. I have read that the E-3 individual can petition for Green Card without jeopardizing the E-3 status.This would be a backdoor increase in the number of GC seekers.Australia has not consumed more than 2000-3000 annually but Ireland is going to be a lot different
gs - i have a two fold perspective here.
1. US was founded by predominantly white protestant people. So it is understandable that the existing population has more pull towards countries of their origin - whether Ireland or Australia. For that matter if you and I (assuming you too are Indian!) would naturally support immigration from India to US. So that's what various lobbying groups do and I think it is just part and parcel of the process ....
2. Countries like Ireland and Australia are not where people are lining to go to US. Chinese immigration is already dwindling down. Indian might also reduce if we consistently grow at 8% for next 15 years. So although theoretically those countries have this ability .... the reality is they dont produce as much immigration as many other countries like India China MExico Philipines etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Thanks for clarifying re: FB and the two allocations. I couldn't figure out why they had two seemingly contradictory provisions, but that makes perfect sense. I went back and re-read and your explanation makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I don't understand why they repeated the definitions of EB-1 (with some minor changes in language) in the section listing numerically-exempt categories, yet did not repeal EB-1 from section 203(b).
The hanging "and" is a mystery. I heard Sen. Rubio in an interview explain they wouldn't allow more than 2M visas for RPIs in any year so as not to overload USCIS, but I can't find that anywhere in the bill. It makes sense if the line that's missing after the and said something like "no more than 2,000,000 can be processed in a single fiscal year?