gc28262
07-30 07:07 AM
Success Story: Showing a Valid Employer-Employee Relationship (http://shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationaugust2010.html#5)
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
wallpaper Wedding Ideas
pappu
03-17 12:26 AM
My company informed me today that, when spouse is added to the insurence, the insurence will start from day 1 of next month. My wife will be comming in the middle of month. How to cover this gap with insurence...?? Any suggestions...????
Please correct your profile. The dates are incorrect. Thanks.
Please correct your profile. The dates are incorrect. Thanks.
rkm
07-17 06:34 PM
Thanks again for all the IV support....Great news...
Thank you very much Pappu, Logic Life and IV core members..
Your great effort brought us this great news and relief
Thank you very much Pappu, Logic Life and IV core members..
Your great effort brought us this great news and relief
2011 kate middleton wedding dress
sriharirag
07-16 10:47 AM
Here is the full article.
>>>>>>>>>>>
U.S. to Reverse
Some Denials
Of Work Visas
By MIRIAM JORDAN
July 16, 2007; Page A2
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
Tens of thousands of skilled workers, many of them in the U.S. on temporary H1B visas, responded to an official invitation, in a June 12 "visa bulletin" issued by the State Department, to take the final step in July toward attaining U.S. permanent residency. That sent workers, their families and their employers scrambling to compile paperwork and meet other requirements such as medical exams. Normally, eligible employment-sponsored workers wait years for their numbers to be called.
Then, July 2, as applications poured into processing centers, the State Department announced in a bulletin "update" that no employment-based immigrant visas were left for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 because of "sudden backlog reduction" by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS announced it would reject applications that it received.
People familiar with the situation say that officials are working out the final details of a plan that would at least partially rectify the problem.
It isn't clear, however, whether the immigration agency will now accept all applications and process them later, accept only those that have arrived, or come up with some other approach.
The July 2 decision provoked outrage among immigration lawyers, foreign workers and their employers. July 5, Microsoft Corp. announced that it plans soon to open a software-development center in Vancouver, Canada, with a view to "recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." The announcement sent a clear signal to the government of the high-tech industry's dissatisfaction with the visa situation.
July 6, a large Chicago immigration law firm filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the government. Separately, the American Immigration Law Foundation, a nonprofit group, said it will file this week its own suit seeking class-action status.
Meanwhile, disgruntled green-card applicants cried foul, saying they had been unfairly treated by the government despite playing by the rules.
July 10, they registered their disappointment at the immigration system by dispatching hundreds of flower bouquets to the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief Emilio Gonzalez.
The next day, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes Silicon Valley, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff requesting "all correspondence, emails, memoranda, notes, field guidance or other documentation" leading to the immigration system's about-face July 2.
The problem may have resulted from a communications breakdown between the State Department, which issues a monthly bulletin detailing who is eligible to file a green-card application, and USCIS, which processes the visa applications. The State Department has said that its role is to ensure that every visa slot available is used. In the past, however, the immigration agency has failed to use all of the slots.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
U.S. to Reverse
Some Denials
Of Work Visas
By MIRIAM JORDAN
July 16, 2007; Page A2
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
Tens of thousands of skilled workers, many of them in the U.S. on temporary H1B visas, responded to an official invitation, in a June 12 "visa bulletin" issued by the State Department, to take the final step in July toward attaining U.S. permanent residency. That sent workers, their families and their employers scrambling to compile paperwork and meet other requirements such as medical exams. Normally, eligible employment-sponsored workers wait years for their numbers to be called.
Then, July 2, as applications poured into processing centers, the State Department announced in a bulletin "update" that no employment-based immigrant visas were left for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 because of "sudden backlog reduction" by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS announced it would reject applications that it received.
People familiar with the situation say that officials are working out the final details of a plan that would at least partially rectify the problem.
It isn't clear, however, whether the immigration agency will now accept all applications and process them later, accept only those that have arrived, or come up with some other approach.
The July 2 decision provoked outrage among immigration lawyers, foreign workers and their employers. July 5, Microsoft Corp. announced that it plans soon to open a software-development center in Vancouver, Canada, with a view to "recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." The announcement sent a clear signal to the government of the high-tech industry's dissatisfaction with the visa situation.
July 6, a large Chicago immigration law firm filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the government. Separately, the American Immigration Law Foundation, a nonprofit group, said it will file this week its own suit seeking class-action status.
Meanwhile, disgruntled green-card applicants cried foul, saying they had been unfairly treated by the government despite playing by the rules.
July 10, they registered their disappointment at the immigration system by dispatching hundreds of flower bouquets to the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief Emilio Gonzalez.
The next day, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes Silicon Valley, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff requesting "all correspondence, emails, memoranda, notes, field guidance or other documentation" leading to the immigration system's about-face July 2.
The problem may have resulted from a communications breakdown between the State Department, which issues a monthly bulletin detailing who is eligible to file a green-card application, and USCIS, which processes the visa applications. The State Department has said that its role is to ensure that every visa slot available is used. In the past, however, the immigration agency has failed to use all of the slots.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
more...
Alabaman
04-30 06:23 PM
all talk... talk talk talk...no action
posmd
03-21 05:11 PM
Would appreciate you updating this thread once you find out.
more...
sagittarian
12-18 06:24 PM
. hope this helps.
You bet! Thanks a lot.
You bet! Thanks a lot.
2010 makeup Kate Middleton Wedding
kevinkris
09-22 01:01 PM
it will not effect your GC..
what do you base this on
what do you base this on
more...
Rajwaitingon140
11-21 12:43 PM
Yes mine processing date is 21st DEC and EB3 and also LUD is JAN'8'2007
if I don't see any update on my case I will wait for one more processing time update and then I can ask my Attorney to proceed for SR.
Thank you guys this is great help.
Thank you
Raj
Raj,
SR can be opened by company HR or lawyer if the service center processing time exceeds your receipt date by more than 30 days.
As sunny said, when NSC moves their processing time to more than 21st Jan 2007 ( I assume ur RD is 21st DEC and EB3)...your lawyer can call the normal 1800...number and raise a SR.
it's a simple process and lawyer should be knowing how to handle this.
I see people getting decisions within 30-45 days after SR.
Mine came in about 27 days.
let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
if I don't see any update on my case I will wait for one more processing time update and then I can ask my Attorney to proceed for SR.
Thank you guys this is great help.
Thank you
Raj
Raj,
SR can be opened by company HR or lawyer if the service center processing time exceeds your receipt date by more than 30 days.
As sunny said, when NSC moves their processing time to more than 21st Jan 2007 ( I assume ur RD is 21st DEC and EB3)...your lawyer can call the normal 1800...number and raise a SR.
it's a simple process and lawyer should be knowing how to handle this.
I see people getting decisions within 30-45 days after SR.
Mine came in about 27 days.
let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
hair wedding dress ideas. Kate
milind70
10-15 10:45 AM
Hello Gurus,
I am EB3 India with PD September 2002.
After all these years of endless waiting I am called for
an interview at the local office in Philadelphia
in Nov 26th 2007.
Here are my details:
Labour Applied: September 2002
Labour approved: September 2003
I-140/I-485 Applied: April 2004
I-140 Pproved: August 2004
Got married: August 2005
Applied I-485 for Wife: June 2007
Current Status of Wife: H1-B
Countelss EADs and APs for me and a recent EAD approval
for my wife with her AP still pending and status is still H1-B.
In the beginning of this year, I resigned from the
company who was the original sponsorer of my GC.
I then started contracting on hourly basis and worked for
a decent hourly rate for the first half of this year.
Finally I got a full time offer with decent salary and
benefits and took the job. I started working for this
job - remotely and also took up another contracting job
on an hourly basis (Got greedy as I waited too long :-))
and started working on both these jobs.
The point is - it is a different technology and not even
remotely connected to my original job where my Labour
cert was applied and approved. I was a developer
back then and with all the experience, I couldn't
continue as the pay was too low and no growth at all.
I can have a letter of future employment that
states that I have on offer in the same technology
in which my original labour was applied and approved
and that is not a problem at all.
Please advise me on how to go about it. I can
afford to pay and take the best attorney with me
to the interview - some one who is very well known in
the Philadelphia area.
Any inputs/advise are really appreciated.
IMP: Icing on the cake - my PD was mentioned wrong in
the interview notice - it says april 2004 !!
That was when my i-140 was applied and not labour.
My labour was applied in September 2002 !!!
Advise on this is also appreciated.
Thanks a lot.
I think you should be fine, just be confident dont waiver in interview.
Stick to what is on paper.
Regarding your PD it is of utmost importance that you get it corrected now
than later, I had a friend who had a PD of May 2001 but his PD was detrmined to be may 2004 his attorney raised a query and got it corrected.
I think in your case because have put your 140 date as PD since PD is usually determined at 140 stage and u have filed concurrently,make sure you bring this upto the notice of USCIS and get it corrected .
I am EB3 India with PD September 2002.
After all these years of endless waiting I am called for
an interview at the local office in Philadelphia
in Nov 26th 2007.
Here are my details:
Labour Applied: September 2002
Labour approved: September 2003
I-140/I-485 Applied: April 2004
I-140 Pproved: August 2004
Got married: August 2005
Applied I-485 for Wife: June 2007
Current Status of Wife: H1-B
Countelss EADs and APs for me and a recent EAD approval
for my wife with her AP still pending and status is still H1-B.
In the beginning of this year, I resigned from the
company who was the original sponsorer of my GC.
I then started contracting on hourly basis and worked for
a decent hourly rate for the first half of this year.
Finally I got a full time offer with decent salary and
benefits and took the job. I started working for this
job - remotely and also took up another contracting job
on an hourly basis (Got greedy as I waited too long :-))
and started working on both these jobs.
The point is - it is a different technology and not even
remotely connected to my original job where my Labour
cert was applied and approved. I was a developer
back then and with all the experience, I couldn't
continue as the pay was too low and no growth at all.
I can have a letter of future employment that
states that I have on offer in the same technology
in which my original labour was applied and approved
and that is not a problem at all.
Please advise me on how to go about it. I can
afford to pay and take the best attorney with me
to the interview - some one who is very well known in
the Philadelphia area.
Any inputs/advise are really appreciated.
IMP: Icing on the cake - my PD was mentioned wrong in
the interview notice - it says april 2004 !!
That was when my i-140 was applied and not labour.
My labour was applied in September 2002 !!!
Advise on this is also appreciated.
Thanks a lot.
I think you should be fine, just be confident dont waiver in interview.
Stick to what is on paper.
Regarding your PD it is of utmost importance that you get it corrected now
than later, I had a friend who had a PD of May 2001 but his PD was detrmined to be may 2004 his attorney raised a query and got it corrected.
I think in your case because have put your 140 date as PD since PD is usually determined at 140 stage and u have filed concurrently,make sure you bring this upto the notice of USCIS and get it corrected .
more...
tikka
06-07 04:28 PM
please Contribute.
Iv Needs Funds
Iv Needs Funds
hot kate middleton wedding dress
stemcell
04-05 10:07 AM
Used FHA loan.
Closed on Feb 26 with Coldwell Banker.
didnt have issues regards my H1B status.
Closed on Feb 26 with Coldwell Banker.
didnt have issues regards my H1B status.
more...
house Wedding Dress of Kate
Canadian_Dream
07-25 02:02 PM
IMO: That's the best option to pursue in this situation. Make sure you clearly mention in both I-140/I-485 applications that you have a pending I-140/I-485 (with Receipt Numbers etc). Also send a small write-up along with all the applications explaining the situation and reason for the second filing.
I would file a separate I-485 and I-140 for this other LC. Experts, what say?
I would file a separate I-485 and I-140 for this other LC. Experts, what say?
tattoo Wedding Dresses for Kate
glen
03-08 09:57 AM
Great! I have been speaking to my colleagues and friends about IV. Trying to spread awareness about IV. Most have registered :) but not all have contributed.
One thing for sure, emails alone do not work. Each individual has to be called and followed. There are many who do not understand the gravity of the situation.
If all current members can get five more guys to register. Goals can be met in no-time.
One thing for sure, emails alone do not work. Each individual has to be called and followed. There are many who do not understand the gravity of the situation.
If all current members can get five more guys to register. Goals can be met in no-time.
more...
pictures Wedding Dresses for Kate
Berkeleybee
05-16 01:28 PM
All,
We had always intended these forums to be mainly focused on IV's agenda and legislative strategy.
Up till now, IV's agenda has mainly been discussed in the "Green Card Retrogression" forum. We are creating a forum where we will only discuss those issues -- "IV Agenda and Legislative Strategy"
Example Topics:
Forum: IV Agenda and Legislative Strategy
IV Fundraising, News Articles on CIR issues, Current Bill Text Analysis
Forum: Green Card Retrogression
Visa Bulletin, assorted I-485 issues
I would also like to gently remind you that IV does not condone or endorse any discussions of methods to outgame the system -- by filing paperwork that does not match the facts etc. Several members have drawn our attention to posts that come close to crossing this line.
We had always intended these forums to be mainly focused on IV's agenda and legislative strategy.
Up till now, IV's agenda has mainly been discussed in the "Green Card Retrogression" forum. We are creating a forum where we will only discuss those issues -- "IV Agenda and Legislative Strategy"
Example Topics:
Forum: IV Agenda and Legislative Strategy
IV Fundraising, News Articles on CIR issues, Current Bill Text Analysis
Forum: Green Card Retrogression
Visa Bulletin, assorted I-485 issues
I would also like to gently remind you that IV does not condone or endorse any discussions of methods to outgame the system -- by filing paperwork that does not match the facts etc. Several members have drawn our attention to posts that come close to crossing this line.
dresses kate middleton wedding dress
eb3_nepa
02-03 12:52 PM
Hi guys,
Let's start a Thread which deals SOLELEY with responses to Senators and Congressmen. Anyone meeting or getting replies from S/C pls mention them here.
Admin can we make this Thread a STICKY one?
Thanks
Let's start a Thread which deals SOLELEY with responses to Senators and Congressmen. Anyone meeting or getting replies from S/C pls mention them here.
Admin can we make this Thread a STICKY one?
Thanks
more...
makeup Kate Middleton wedding Dress
detroit2009
07-09 05:04 PM
Hi,
Have a query in regard to the H1B Visa status. Would it be ok to work for a different branch of the same company, when my unit is not able to provide me with the required number of hours/week. I work for a hospital as a physcial therapist, and am having trouble maintaining the full time hrs, Other units of the same hospital are desperately in need of the therapists.(But working for them would be under different tax id and also would be a seperate pay check, but the same hospital though).
Any answers would be highly appreciated.
Thank you.
Have a query in regard to the H1B Visa status. Would it be ok to work for a different branch of the same company, when my unit is not able to provide me with the required number of hours/week. I work for a hospital as a physcial therapist, and am having trouble maintaining the full time hrs, Other units of the same hospital are desperately in need of the therapists.(But working for them would be under different tax id and also would be a seperate pay check, but the same hospital though).
Any answers would be highly appreciated.
Thank you.
girlfriend create her wedding dress.
another one
07-01 09:28 AM
And then either edit your post or remove it.
To Administrator: Why are you deleting my post. I am just copy pasting a PURE TRUTH i.e. a TEXT OF LEGISLATION. I am not making up things. There are many other threads where people are just discussing unnecessary stuff. I am just saying that legal immigrants who have not yet applied for EB should contact congress to include us in any kind of amnesty - not exclude us. How
OUT. ACT NOW...
To Administrator: Why are you deleting my post. I am just copy pasting a PURE TRUTH i.e. a TEXT OF LEGISLATION. I am not making up things. There are many other threads where people are just discussing unnecessary stuff. I am just saying that legal immigrants who have not yet applied for EB should contact congress to include us in any kind of amnesty - not exclude us. How
OUT. ACT NOW...
hairstyles Royal Wedding Inspired Ideas
boston_gc
07-09 11:01 PM
I am sure there are many guys in this forum as frustrated as I am and we all have been wondering what our other options are. I also know that lot of people have started to think very seriously about immigration to other countries.
Based on our current circumstances, I have been wondering if it will be worth making a collective effort. In other words, how about if wrote an open and collective letter to leaders of the other immigrant friendly countries about our interest in immigration to their country for the mutual economic and professional benefits. I know this sounds a little silly but if USA is not ready to recognize and appreciate the benefits of legal immigrant community then I am sure there will be several other countries willing to benefit from this situation and gain competitive excellence. After all, we are all professionals and we all have lot to offer to the economy of today's competitive world. I believe we deserve a little better than we got right now.
Any thoughts?
Based on our current circumstances, I have been wondering if it will be worth making a collective effort. In other words, how about if wrote an open and collective letter to leaders of the other immigrant friendly countries about our interest in immigration to their country for the mutual economic and professional benefits. I know this sounds a little silly but if USA is not ready to recognize and appreciate the benefits of legal immigrant community then I am sure there will be several other countries willing to benefit from this situation and gain competitive excellence. After all, we are all professionals and we all have lot to offer to the economy of today's competitive world. I believe we deserve a little better than we got right now.
Any thoughts?
sbmallik
05-28 10:18 AM
You can also locate the priority date in the I-140 approval notice.
ski_dude12
10-10 03:32 PM
November's visa bulletin is a wild card. Can expect anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment