its a very fair question longgcque - especially since the effective date is FY12. So that implies 34000 EB2 numbers should go to India and China (pre-spillover) just before September 2012. and Another 34,000 will be available in the new fiscal year, October 2012 to cover the period until September 2013. Dates should surely move well into end 2010 for EB2 I and current for EB2 C. Or am I missing something? I probably am...
Congrats to all of us and a big Thanks to the effort behind this bill.
Vishnu, the bill will be effective from FY2013 and the law makers will change the effective date accordingly before it becomes law. There is no chance of retrieving the visa numbers already used :)
That makes sense Kanmani and what I thought as well. But was surprised that in the ** FAQs, the effective date was reconfirmed to be FY2012. I guess that would be modified when it goes back to house.
Also, I believe a change in "effective date" is not considered an amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by vishnu
We don't like to count our chickens before the eggs hatch. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by longgcque
Given how slow things move in the Senate -About 8 months to just get the hold removed - it is unlikely that things will start moving at break neck speed and be done within 2 weeks. It would be great if it happened so but we are realists here.
That said, the starting point will be the same that Mr. CO divulged few weeks ago. Of course, the movement after it would be much faster thanks to HR 3012 if it is a law by then.
Wondering why do you think that starting point would be the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Kd is right. It is unlikely the bill will get passed before Oct/Nov given summer recess schedules for the Senate and House. The House in particular is barely working for 2-3 weeks between July-end to Sep-end.
Suninphx,
Because the bill probably won't be passed in this FY, the starting point will be the same.
Effective date of FY2012 infers that this year would be counted as first year for 15% cap limit. I am just guessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
I guess the starting point would be Jan 2009 IC and WW and move forward assuming the bill becomes law before oct'12
Ok- I thought KD was responding to possible opening date if HR3012 is a law by that time. May be I understood it differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
I tend to agree. CO has no reason to be defensive if its a law by that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
PS: I understand its long way to go but then again we got some positive news after a while :).
Sun, DoS has already distributed the EB and Family visa numbers asper existing set of rules . How could they alter the issued numbers? 140K additional GCs ? Which may require a new bill , instead they will simply change 2 to 3 .
What I meant is they can not take back visas already given (ofcourse) but wondering if this year will be counted as first year as more than 15% visas have already been given. Its just optimistic guess work, nothing more :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
It will most likely be a FY13 effective date.
To Vishnu
Thank you for the earlier post detailing the FAQs on the Grasley Amendment. My feeling is that the column underplays the audit component of the amendment for H-1B dependent employers.I am not sure if this link has been provided here before but I would direct attention to Item no 5 where it says that the audits are mandatory for all H-1B dependent employers
http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2012/...n-card-limits/
Sen.Grassley also mentions this in his statement in paragraph 4
"There is also agreement to include a provision allowing the Federal Government to do annual compliance audits of employers who bring in foreign workers through the H-1B visa program."
As everybody else in this forum has already mentioned these are good faith amendments and a step to ensure that the H-1B program works as intended.To be pointed out also is that Sen.Grassley was part of the senate judiciary committee in 1990 that originated the H-1B visa and understands the original intent of the visa and the subsequent misuse/abuse albeit by a small fraction.The challenge always is ensuring that the offenders are trapped without placing undue burden on employers who are clean and playing by the rules. Of course the final language may be diluted after being processed through the legislative mill.
I agree that it is much easier to preserve the language and change the date of enactment to avoid confusion. I am just surprised at the relatively sombre tone of posts on this forum (except for one post in the middle of the night!!). I am only assuming that everybody has seen so many promises come and go that they probably will wait till it shows up on the White House website that the Bill has been signed by President Obama
Interestingly no mention of this development yet on the AILA website
If you look at the priority date thread, you will see most members of this forum have PDs of 2007 to 2009 and have their EADs by now. Those with 2010 and onward haven't realized the wait ahead of them. Hence the lukewarm response.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
We should never take seriously whatever written on any Attorney sites regarding H.R.3012 almost half of the Attorneys and a big part of AILA, including Ron Gotcher is against H.R.3012 (with Guncle's amendment) why because they miss the $$$ to sue Government agencies like DOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
And as of now the effective date is Fiscal year 2012, unless it is changed in the final form. Bothering about the dates now is too early!;) "Anything is possible in the Land of Make-Belief"
Do you know when it might come on to senate floor for voting.
To Kd
I understand that mindset with EB2 professionals but I was hoping that EB3 would be rejoicing more
I guess cautious optimism is being practiced by EB3 - I/C to be more specific - folks.
No one knows for sure. But they essentially have 3 weeks before Summer recess and then 3 weeks in Sept if they want to get it in before Oct. Ofcourse, after they approve it (assumption here), it will go back to the House for a re-vote and who knows how long it will sit there or if it gets re-amended. After that it has to be signed in by the President and that's another issue by itself (especially with the Presidential elections). I'm hoping it will reach total resolution one way or another by Dec 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox2009
To fellow forum members
This from the National Journal today
http://influencealley.nationaljourna...id=site_search
I liked the Comment on the link you provided. Probably from an Attorney. But looks an unbiased one in the current situation. Here it is......
Those from India who are thanking Sen. Grassley have their facts wrong. Sen. Grassley is not the hero of this bill as the article seems to imply.
The initial bill, the one that got rid of the per country cap, was not Sen. Grassley's bill. It was Rep. Jason Chaffetz's bill. You should thank Rep. Chaffetz.
Sen. Grassley was the one who held up the bill as it originally was. In order to get Sen. Grassley to take the hold off the bill the groups supporting this bill made a deal with Sen. Grassley to add some conditions to the bill to buy his support for the bill. The additions to the bill are 1) an increase in the power of the DOL to audit LCA's and 2) additional audits for company's that have more than 100 employees and have more than 15% of their employees on H-1B visas.
While it sounds wonderful for the DOL to catch those who are filing fraudulent LCA's, the reality of it is that it will be the individual foreign national employees who pay the price for these additions, not the employers. Additional audits will result in lots of innocent potential H-1B employees (many of them Indian) not being able to get the H-1B visas because the H-1B visa quota ran out before their LCA was approved. It will also mean that LCAs will need to be applied for much earlier to account for the increased possibility of an audit and delay, which will mean that initial H-1B petitions under the cap will be for less than 3 years.
Als, before you cheer giving the DOL more power to audit companies, you should realize that the penalty for a company that is found to have committed fraud is disbarment from being able to sponsor H-1B's. Which means that when fraud is found it is not the company that is punished. The company will be able to continue on without its H-1B employees. It is the company's H-1B employees, who now find themselves working for a company that will have to eventually fire them because they can't renew their H-1B's.
I am not saying that this is a bad bill. It does correct a fundamental inequity in the immigration laws. But Sen. Grassley certainly does not deserve the credit for it or the thanks of the Indian community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
But H1 B controls are a must to get rid of the fraud that may happen. Even the employers may get affected if caught as they will loose their revenue from H1B. I am sure many EVC companies have their main revenue from H1B only
Quote:
Originally Posted by feedmyback