Breaking News

DOL Announces $2.65 Million Penalty for H-1B LCA Violations

News Release

ESA News Release: [11/21/2005]
Contact Name: Brad Mitchell
Phone Number: (312) 353-6976
Release Number: 05-1909-CHI

Southfield, Mich., Computer Staffing Firm to Pay $2.65 Million In Back Wages and Penalties for Immigration Law Violations

DETROIT— Computech Inc., a Southfield, Mich., firm that places computer professionals at locations throughout the United States has agreed to pay $2,250,000 in back wages to 232 computer professionals and a $400,000 fine to settle immigration law violations, the U.S. Labor Department announced today.

An investigation by the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division found that Computech brought non-immigrant H-1B workers into the U.S., but failed to pay them the minimum required wage rates in the areas where they were employed. The investigation also disclosed that Computech frequently “benched” the workers without compensation contrary to the rules of the H-1B program.

“The Department of Labor aggressively enforces the law to ensure that temporary foreign workers are compensated fully and fairly,” said Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao. “Abuse of the temporary foreign worker program is not tolerated and violators, as this case shows, are vigorously pursued.”

The settlement, approved by a U.S. Labor Department administrative law judge, orders the company to pay $2,250,000 to 232 foreign workers and a $400,000 fine in addition to the back wages. The company is also prohibited from participation in the H-1B visa program for 18 months.

The H-1B visa program allows foreign workers to enter and work temporarily in the United States in professional level jobs such as computer programmers, engineers, medical doctors and teachers. H-1B workers must be paid at least the same wage rates and benefits as those paid to U.S. workers already doing the same job in the same area.

Computech contracts with other firms to supply computer professionals who work on the premises of those firms. It has customers across the U.S., with the largest numbers of its workers in Michigan, Illinois, California, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Minnesota.

The Wage and Hour Division enforces the H-1B wage provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in addition to other federal laws pertaining to wage payments. For more information please visit www.dol.gov or call toll free 1-866-4-USA-DOL.
 
This is a big blow for this company than Penalty ........
"The company is also prohibited from participation in the H-1B visa program for 18 months."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
800 immigrants going back to home countries

I heard the news they laid off 800 legal immigrants and contractors from sprint, computech, verizonwireless from various branches and everyone are on H1 visa and I heard that so many people are going back to there sweet home countries.
Good news to hear,
I think this country they dont need highly skilled people like us and they want to outsource everything to east.
Good job guys,
keep it up.
 
PBPC Labor Certification Status

According to Immigrationlaw website,we need to wait till June 2006,before our
labor cases start getting approved from Philiadelphia Backlog Production Center.(PBPC)

"DOL has reported to the AILA that they have yet to complete full entries for entire cases, but at this time, at least, partial entries have been for all the cases so that they can provide screen shots for the H-1B 7th year extension applicants. Full entries and 45-day letters for all the cases may not be completed until June 2006. Accurate processing time reports may not be available until that time. It appears that the backlog center application waiters may need some more patience to see their cases completed."

Hmmmm...I think we need to wait 2+ more years.....:mad:
 
Anybody has access to AILA: please get more info

12/2/2005
Minutes of AILA-DOL Liaison Meeting (11/14/2005) (.pdf 73 KB)
Discussions with DOL covered 45-day letters and other issues involving the backlog elimination centers as well PERM-related issues, including: mail-in applications, recruitment requirements, prevailing wage issues, processing times, erroneous denials, and more. Also includes a PERM Do's and Don'ts suggestion list from DOL. AILA Doc. No. 05120260.
 
get ready for more screwing, anything is possible.

"The IG report is expected to affect the immigration benefits processing, requiring the changes in the procedures in petitions or applications. First, the USCIS is expected to require the biometric collection as a standard procedure for the "first" application or petition for any immigrant or nonimmigrant benefits. The USCIS has reported that it intends to require a biometric collection for the temporary worker (I-129) petitions and other applications, including the ancillary proceedings such as EAD and Advance Parole. This may affect the EAD application procedures in two ways, among others. Currently the agency allows mail-in EAD application which does not require the biometric collection unlike online filings. It is likely that the agency may change that. As for the Interm EAD after 90-day of filing of EAD application, the agency may adopt the current practice of some of the Service Centers and local district offices that state that the 90-day clock does not start ticking until the biometric is completed at the Application Service Centers. Moreover, even though the USCIS enacted a regulation, multiple-year EAD issuance may turn out to be a dead regulation because of the security issues. People should be prepared for such upcoming changes. "

http://www.immigration-law.com/

What does this mean ? "90-day clock does not start ticking until the biometric is completed"
How much time does this "biometric" take ?

Looks like more troubles are ahead.. :rolleyes:
 
Senate S. 1932 Immigration Packet Practically "Dead"

The Senate is scheduled to continue the preagreed motions for instructions to the Senate conferees as follows: DeWine Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that any conference report shall not include the provisions contained in section 8701 of the House D1282amendment relating to the repeal of section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930. GPO's PDFKohl Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that any conference report shall not include any of the provisions in the House amendment that reduce funding for the child support program established under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), and to insist that the conference report shall not include any restrictions on the ability of States to use Federal child support incentive payments for child support program expenditures that are eligible for Federal matching payments. Kennedy Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that the Senate provisions increasing need based financial aid in the bill S. 1932, which were fully offset by savings in the bill S. 1932, be included in the final conference report and that the House provisions in the bill H.R. 4241 that impose new fees and costs on students in school and in repayment be rejected in the final conference report. Reed Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist on a provision that makes available $2,920,000,000 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), in addition to the $2,183,000,000 made available for such Act in the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006. A unanimous-consent agreement was reached yesterday providing for further consideration of the message from the House to accompany S. 1932 (listed above) at 3:30 p.m., today with a series of votes to occur on the pending motions to instruct Conferees.
Since the Senate would agree not to instruct the Senate conferees not to include the House amendment to the Senate version on the immigration packet, the original Sections 8001 and 8002 appear to be practically dead unless any unlikely miracle takes place.
 
House Adopts Budget Bill Without H-1B and EB Visa Provisions

House Adopts Budget Bill Without H-1B and EB Visa Provisions

Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 05121966 (posted Dec. 19, 2005)"

Early in the morning of December 19, the House adopted a conference report on the budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932) that did not include the Senate Judiciary Committee provisions that would have recaptured unused H-1B and employment-based visa numbers. The House was also forced to strip its proposal to impose a $1,500 fee increase on L visas from the final bill. Although we are very disappointed that Congress did not take affirmative action to ameliorate the crisis confronting American businesses and universities, at least the House was prevented from imposing the regressive tax on businesses using the L visas that it originally contemplated.

The Senate is scheduled to take up the conference report today, December 19, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) threatened on Sunday night to hold up all remaining Senate business in protest of the Republican leadership's attempt to attach Alaska drilling provisions to the defense appropriations bill. We will keep you updated on the budget reconciliation bill's progress in the Senate. If it passes without the provisions for H-1B blackout and retrogression relief, we will begin looking for new options to secure such relief in the new year.
 
High-Tech Visa Plan Dropped From Bill By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A Senate-passed measure to add more visas for foreign workers in high-tech and specialty fields was dropped from a budget bill that passed the House early Monday, disappointing high-tech and manufacturing firms in search of skilled workers.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Senate plan would have allowed 30,000 more of the popular H1-B visas each year, and increased fees for those visas to help trim the budget deficit. Congress capped the six-year H-1B visas at 65,000 per year in 2004, and that cap has already been reached for the 2006 fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

The Senate language also would have allowed 90,000 more employment-based green cards that offer permanent residency to skilled workers, and added fees for those.

Critics contend the visas give foreigners high-level jobs that should go to American workers, and the plan was opposed by some House Republicans as a backdoor way to boost immigration. House and Senate negotiators left it out of the final version of a $39.7 billion federal budget bill that passed the House 212-206 and was expected to get a Senate vote later in the day.

"This is very, very disappointing," said Sandy Boyd, a vice president at the National Association of Manufacturers. "What's distressing about this, and what the Senate clearly understood, is there is a real global competition for this work and for these employees, and the question is not whether the work is going to get done, it's where is the work going to get done. We've missed a real opportunity by not ensuring the work would be done here."

House and Senate negotiators also dropped a plan to increase fees on another kind of visa, the L-1, which companies use to transfer workers they already employ in foreign countries to the United States.

The boost to visa availability and fees was meant to achieve budget savings in programs under jurisdiction of the congressional judiciary committees. Instead of using visas, the final version of the bill saves money in judiciary programs by increasing fees for filing lawsuits and filing for bankruptcy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_co/congress_high_tech_visas
 
about S-1932

It is my understanding that S-1932 was passed without H1-B recap. OK. Howabout the filing of 485 after I-140 aproval without waiting for retrogation date and getting miscellaneous benifits like work permit for self and spouce etc.?

Thanks!
 
lax-gc said:
It is my understanding that S-1932 was passed without H1-B recap. OK. Howabout the filing of 485 after I-140 aproval without waiting for retrogation date and getting miscellaneous benifits like work permit for self and spouce etc.?

Thanks!
Click to expand...


NOTHING MADE IT. NO RELIEF AT ALL. WE GOT THOROUGHLY BEATEN.....
 
There is still hope in Feb 2006

Not beaten yet as we see this in Immigration-law.com:
"In fact, there was a sign of switching gear from recapture issue to the comprehensive immigration reform and more or less accepted the idea that the visa numbers for legal immigration would be better off being a part of the comprehensive immigration reform process...
By next February or thereafter, they will realize that their turn of the strategy was misguided by the anti-immigration forces. "Divide and Conquer" and "Delay and Kill" strategies of these forces perfectedly worked.
It is a sad day but the process should never cease. After all, it is a part of the political "process" which should not end at a given time spot..."

indio0617 said:
NOTHING MADE IT. NO RELIEF AT ALL. WE GOT THOROUGHLY BEATEN.....
Click to expand...
 
Guys,

In the short run, I agree that the 'immigrants-in-waiting' are at a disadvantage...but, look at the long term effects....all these jobs are being created in your homelands as they can't be done in US!

Who wouldn't like to live in their homeland and be able to do the jobs that they are currently doing here (especially, if you are financially well compensated)?

Cheer up! :)
 
DOL New Policy on Multiple Labor Certification Applications for Same Employee

12/21/2005: DOL New Policy on Multiple Labor Certification Applications for Same Employee

* DOL has revised the FAQ to announce the long-awaited DOL policy on the multiple filings of labor certification applications by the same employer for the same employee as follows:
o PERM Cases: Under PERM, is it permissible for an employer to have more than one labor certification application actively in process for the same alien for the same job opportunity at any given time? What should an employer do if it has already filed multiple applications for the same alien for the same job opportunity?
Under the old and new permanent labor certification regulations, DOL certifies that there are not available U.S. workers for a particular "job opportunity." See, e.g., 20 CFR 656.10(c) (new PERM regulation) and 656.20(c) (prior regulation). DOL's longstanding policy has been that an employer is not prohibited from filing applications for the same alien involving different, legitimate job openings to which U.S. workers may be referred. See, e.g., Field Memorandum 48-94 (May 16, 1994) (Policy Guidance on Alien Labor Certification Issues at § 6). However, DOL has not processed or certified multiple labor certifications for the same alien and same job opportunity on grounds that the additional applications cannot represent a bona fide different job opportunity available to U.S. workers.
o In the months since the PERM regulation's streamlined procedures for filing and processing of permanent labor certification applications took effect on March 28, 2005, some employers have filed multiple electronic applications for the same alien and same job opportunity. In some cases, the multiple applications are identical in all respects and may have been the result of inadvertently repeating the "submit" function. In other cases, the applications differ in minor respects, such as answering questions regarding job requirements differently or varying in descriptions of skill requirements. In some cases, these minor differences may have been intended to prematurely respond to electronic denials (that is, in advance of receiving the written denial letter) or to test the system's responsiveness and auditing criteria.
o DOL intends to apply its longstanding policy regarding multiple applications to multiple applications filed under the new PERM regulation. Therefore, an employer may not have more than one Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, in process under the PERM regulation for the same alien beneficiary for the same job opportunity at any given time.
o Recognizing that multiple filings are already in the PERM queue for the same employer, alien and job opportunity, we have developed the following procedures to transition in implementation of this policy to PERM:
If an employer currently has multiple applications in process under PERM for the same alien and job opportunity, the employer must withdraw, by January 19, 2006, all applications other than the one it wants processed. (For withdrawal information, see the separate FAQ on procedures for withdrawing an application.)
As of January 19, 2006, if multiple applications from an employer for the same alien and same job opportunity are still pending under PERM, we will assume that the employer wishes the last-filed application to be processed (since this presumably includes any corrections or clarifications from earlier filings) and the other pending PERM applications for the same alien/job opportunity will be denied.
After January 19, 2006, if an application for a particular employer/alien/job opportunity is pending under PERM and a second application is filed under PERM for the same employer/alien/job opportunity, we will continue to process the first-filed PERM application and deny subsequent PERM filings except where the employer follows the procedures outlined here. If the employer wishes to file a new or changed application under PERM for that same alien and job opportunity, the employer should not file the new PERM application until the employer formally withdraws the PERM application currently in process or the employer has received the Final Determination form notifying the employer that the previous application is denied. NOTE: An employer may not file a new application for an alien while a request for review is pending with the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) for that same alien, employer, and job opportunity. See 20 CFR 656.24(e)(6).
o Backlog Cases: DOL will continue to apply its longstanding policy regarding multiple applications under Field Memorandum 48-94 where multiple cases have been filed and are being processed under the old regulation at Backlog Elimination Centers. DOL will continue to process and certify multiple permanent labor certification applications filed under the prior regulation for the same alien if the employer is proposing to employ the alien in multiple different bona fide job openings to which U.S. workers can be referred. DOL will not process or certify multiple labor certifications filed under the prior regulation for the same alien, employer, and job opportunity on grounds that the additional applications cannot represent a bona fide different job opportunity available to U.S. workers.
o If a BEC identifies multiple pending applications for the same employer, job opportunity, and alien, the BEC will issue a Notice of Findings for all related applications, and provide the employer the opportunity to identify which application contains the bona fide job opportunity. Should an employer currently have multiple applications pending at a BEC for the same employer, job opportunity, and alien, the employer may take the initiative and notify the BEC as to which application it wishes to have processed and withdraw all other applications.
o Mutiple Applications Between PERM and Backlog Cases: This FAQ does not address the situation in which an application for the same employer, alien and job opportunity is pending under both the prior and new PERM regulation. DOL is considering stakeholder input on this situation, which in some cases may have implications for priority dates.
o Multiple Applications for Different Occupations: In view of the past practice of allowing the filing of multiple applications by the same employer for the same alien if the job opening was different, why, under PERM, is the employer precluded from having more than one application for the same alien actively in process at any given time?
We have removed the response to this question posted on August 8, 2005. The Department is considering questions and information stakeholders have submitted in response to this FAQ posting, and will be developing and posting a clarified response in the near future.
* For the analysis, please stay tuned to this website.
 
NumbersUSA

http://www.NumbersUSA.com site celebrates the recent house bill that was passed without retrogression relief.

I thought NumbersUSA was an "anti-immigration organization".
But it declares itself as an "immigration-reduction organization".
This is what it says on its site:
"...NumbersUSA Action is pro-environment, pro-worker, pro-liberty and pro-immigrant. Activists in the NumbersUSA Action network are Americans of all races and include many immigrants and the spouses, children and parents of immigrants. Those who need to refer to NumbersUSA Action with a short, descriptive modifier should call it an "immigration-reduction organization..."

Big question is:
If NumbersUSA organization has employment based immigrants in its fold, why don't its site publish the plight of the would-be employment based immigrants especially of those 300,000 cases caught up for more than 4 years in PBEC mess?
 
http://www.immigration-law.com/

These bills are expected to bring a reform in the employment-based immigration increasing the employment-based immigrant visa numbers substantially. There are no strong opposition to this part of the comprehensive immigration reform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top