Senate CIR Bill Summary & Discussion

[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)

[vizcard]

The outplacement provision, that no H1-B can be placed at a third party site( consulting model)

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.

[derekjbj]

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.

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.

(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.’’.

[vizcard]

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.

(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.

also, its illegal only if its a "h1b dependent company" otherwise the company needs to pay $500 per H1b employee.

[rupen86]

"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.

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.

How is H1B dependent category defined? If filing PERM or I140 is the exemption, then that's what companies will do.

[vizcard]

500 is not big amount. I do not know if it is one time amount or have to be paid regularly.

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.

[Spectator]

vizcard,

In you Summary on page 1, you say the following:

- 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

That is not my understanding.

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:

(e) Worldwide level of diversity immigrants.- The worldwide level of diversity immigrants is equal to 55,000 for each fiscal year.

and is replaced (page 256) :

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

to become:

(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.

203(c) currently says:

(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.

The text on page 258 modifies that to become:

(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.

Eventually, this section describes the requirement to qualify for a Merit Based visa.

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).

[vizcard]

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.

[Spectator]

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,

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.

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 ........

EB4 now get any visas unused by EB3

EB5 now get any visas unused by EB4.

Overall, it becomes:

EB2 --> EB3 ---> EB4 ---> EB5
_^________________________ |
_|________________________ |
__-------------------------

[justvisiting]

Vizcard,


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.


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.

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!

[Spectator]

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.

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,

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"

(B) has been lawfully present in the United States for not less than 10 years; and

The next line is 2302 (d). Either there is no "and" or some text is missing.

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.

[qesehmk]

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!

[gs1968]

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?

[qesehmk]

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.

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?

[Spectator]

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?

The E3 visa is a non-immigrant category, so I guess either option is open to them for an immigrant 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.

Q,

Page 734.

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’’.

[qesehmk]

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).

The E3 visa is a non-immigrant category, so I guess either option is open to them for an immigrant visa.

Q,

Page 734.

[Spectator]

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).

Q,

As you say, Australia already have an E3 visa INA 101 (15)(E)(iii).

(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) ;

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).

If passed, it becomes:

(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) ;

The numbers available would be 10,500 for each Country in E3.

(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).’’.

Essentially it just hands the Republic of Ireland 10.5k E3 visas, that have no qualification criteria at all.

[gs1968]

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

[qesehmk]

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.

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

[justvisiting]

justvisiting,

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.

Yet another one is in Section 2302 (c)(3)(B) where the criteria appear incomplete because of the hanging "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.

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.

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?

[rupen86]

Place Holder for Anchor Post

Country cap removal effective from FY 2015
120k from merit track 1 available from first fiscal year after bill enactment date.
Recapture to be effective from FY 2015.
Exempting certain categories from Quota like (Dependents, some STEM graduates, EB1 etc). It is not clear when this will be effective.

It is unfortunate that most of the provisions are not scheduled to take effect immediately.

[Spectator]

Does anyone have thoughts on this anomaly in the text?

In the section that talks about EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS on page 311, it says:

(1) EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS.—

Section 212(a)(5)(D) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(D)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(D) APPLICATION OF GROUNDS.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), the grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to immigrants seeking admission or adjustment of status under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b).

‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS.—

The grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an immigrant seeking admission or adjustment of status under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b).’’.

Subparagraph (A) refers to 212(a)(5)(A)

(A) Labor certification.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-

etc

Paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b) neither exists currently nor is created as part of this Bill (page 303-304), so it appears to be a nonsense sentence, particularly as, in the Bill, (2)(A) of section 203(b) is designated for EB2 cases other than the "special" US STEM Advanced Degree. (2)(B) ADVANCED DEGREES IN A STEM FIELD deals with those. (2)(B)(ii) deals with the definition of a "Doctoral Institution".

As written, I cannot fathom who is actually exempted from needing to go through the PERM process.

[justvisiting]

Does anyone have thoughts on this anomaly in the text?

In the section that talks about EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS on page 311, it says:



Subparagraph (A) refers to 212(a)(5)(A)



Paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b) neither exists currently nor is created as part of this Bill (page 303-304), so it appears to be a nonsense sentence, particularly as, in the Bill, (2)(A) of section 203(b) is designated for EB2 cases other than the "special" US STEM Advanced Degree. (2)(B) ADVANCED DEGREES IN A STEM FIELD deals with those. (2)(B)(ii) deals with the definition of a "Doctoral Institution".

As written, I cannot fathom who is actually exempted from needing to go through the PERM process.

Ron Gotcher commented on this anomaly. The thought is they were trying to reference back to the new STEM category.

[Spectator]

Ron Gotcher commented on this anomaly. The thought is they were trying to reference back to the new STEM category.

justvisiting,

That's my thought too, but the text doesn't actually say that. Also, the exact definition of that new STEM category is also as clear as mud. I wonder whether

‘‘(I) has earned a graduate degree at the level of master’s or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited United States institution of higher education

should actually say

‘‘(I) has earned a graduate degree at the level of master’s or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited United States doctoral institution of higher education

Then defining a Doctoral Institution of Higher Education in the same section [203(b)(2)(B)(ii)] makes sense.

More questions than answers when we get down to the fine detail.

[keep on_trying]

i was reading the section on family visas and i have a few questions about that. i would really appreciate any help from the experts in this forum. i know most of you guys are interested in EB visas but but for those who can help i thank you in advance.

1) in the bill and it seems kind of weird to me that the new allocation of the visas will be 35% for F-1 ( Adult sons and daughter of U.S citizens) and 40% for F-2 (Adult sons and daughters and LPRs). why is it that adult sons and daughters of LPRs will get more visas than adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens?

2) since the bill mentions that any the changes in the visa allocation will take effect 18 months after the enactment of the bill, should we expect the visa bulletin to move at the same current rate for 18 months after the bill's enactment until the new allocations takes place? or will things like visa recapture and other adjustments take effect before that?

3) I've read somewhere that under the new bill, non-immigrant V-Visa will be expended to include adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens and LPRs. this visa will allow those who have been waiting in line for 3+ years to live and work in the U.S while waiting for their priority dates to become current. can anybody confirm that?