- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- Visa Bulletin and Priority Dates Retrogression Iss
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DOL to eliminate labor substitution
- Thread starter nishokie
- Start date
With PERM, the longest time you need to stick with a company is about 9 months (3 months for PERM, 180 days for AC-21). Eliminating substitution labor fraud will not invalidate the AC-21 law.
Your fear mongering scenario has nothing to do with substitution labor fraud and a lot with unscrupulous employers exploiting their immigrant workforce.
Your fear mongering scenario has nothing to do with substitution labor fraud and a lot with unscrupulous employers exploiting their immigrant workforce.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Except that the I-485 can't even become pending if you are affected by retrogression.JoeF said:And, as others have already mentioned, PERM is rather fast, and once an I-485 is pending for 180 days, AC21 can be used.
However, the main cause of retrogression is the mass of labor certifications in the pipeline for which the original person has left, or there was no real original person and the labor was filed only for the purpose of being sold. Eliminating substitution would make priority dates move forward rapidly.
More VISAs are the ONLY solution
The only solution is, more VISAs. No retrogression.
There are 3 points in this recommendation. 2nd point says, within 45days 140 should be filed. I took more than 41days to file since my affidavits were incorrect. And my CEO went to miami for vacation for 11days. So even after I am done with myside, lawyer took a week to correct the form. I am not sure whether that 45 business days or just days. One man army CEOs might threaten the employee to give 10K, to sign in 140 papers. Then, we are back to the square.
As I said, this law is a blank paper. if this becomes law, this can even affect the original person mentioned in the labour.
The only solution is, more VISAs. No retrogression.
God bless you my friend. I didn't get many offers like you did when you selected your company to file H1. So I had no option to judge.All you need is good judgement skill on employer.
Well. They should allow you file 485. And further they shouldn't bring another law that Labour is for that COMPANY only. AC21 needs another Labour. And another 140...With PERM, the longest time you need to stick with a company is about 9 months (3 months for PERM, 180 days for AC-21). Eliminating substitution labor fraud will not invalidate the AC-21 law.
The only solution is, more VISAs. No retrogression.
There are 3 points in this recommendation. 2nd point says, within 45days 140 should be filed. I took more than 41days to file since my affidavits were incorrect. And my CEO went to miami for vacation for 11days. So even after I am done with myside, lawyer took a week to correct the form. I am not sure whether that 45 business days or just days. One man army CEOs might threaten the employee to give 10K, to sign in 140 papers. Then, we are back to the square.
As I said, this law is a blank paper. if this becomes law, this can even affect the original person mentioned in the labour.
The only solution is, more VISAs. No retrogression.
Last edited by a moderator:
> AC21 needs another Labour. And another 140...
Ahem, no it doesn't. If you are more than 180 days out from your I485 filing, you can change to a job in the same profession with a different company and they don't need to file another LC.
> I took more than 41days to file since my affidavits were incorrect.
> And my CEO went to miami for vacation for 11days. So even after
> I am done with myside, lawyer took a week to correct the form.
These are shortcomings of your company, for a change not USCIS/DOL.
> One man army CEOs might threaten the employee to give 10K, to sign
> in 140 papers. Then, we are back to the square.
Again, if you decide to work for a crook in order to obtain an immigration benefit, these are the kind of behaviour you have to expect.
Ahem, no it doesn't. If you are more than 180 days out from your I485 filing, you can change to a job in the same profession with a different company and they don't need to file another LC.
> I took more than 41days to file since my affidavits were incorrect.
> And my CEO went to miami for vacation for 11days. So even after
> I am done with myside, lawyer took a week to correct the form.
These are shortcomings of your company, for a change not USCIS/DOL.
> One man army CEOs might threaten the employee to give 10K, to sign
> in 140 papers. Then, we are back to the square.
Again, if you decide to work for a crook in order to obtain an immigration benefit, these are the kind of behaviour you have to expect.
Have you thought about us non-IT people,...
Who have been stuck behind thousands of fraudulent LCs? Non-IT H-1Bs can't find a substitute LC when they are forced to change jobs. To me, those phony consulting firms should not be allowed to file LCs as they do not have permanant job offers for any individual. Before PERM, they took advantage of fast processing states and set up fake offices in those states. They have done enough harm to be put out of business.
Who have been stuck behind thousands of fraudulent LCs? Non-IT H-1Bs can't find a substitute LC when they are forced to change jobs. To me, those phony consulting firms should not be allowed to file LCs as they do not have permanant job offers for any individual. Before PERM, they took advantage of fast processing states and set up fake offices in those states. They have done enough harm to be put out of business.
asnssf said:If this becomes LAW, you have to live with your company,CEO, Owner, HR and marketing team until you get your GC. (7-8 years)
You have to listen to your marketing manager when he says that he could find project only in Alaska for your profile.
You will be asked to change your skillset to XYZ though you are good in ABC
You will be asked to relocate with your OWN cost for a project you found yourself.
And whatever he says, you cannot leave THAT company, bcas you are stuck in retrogression or your labour is stuck in BEC.
And in between people like NICK misuse all unlucky fellows, and all those have to start their GC game from labour with 2006 priority dates.
Every time you change your company, your CLOCK starts from ZERO again.
You are living in a country which is full of LAWs for poor people where powerful and rich people can walk even after shooting sombody. And one more law will hurt immigrants only. Companies will become more rich;
Nick will not run away; why would he run when he knows that all his h1b guys/gals have no other way to stay in US except him.
Wake up GUYS!!! This law requirement looks like a blank paper, if this becomes law, you are all screwed up. And your friends are screwed up.
I am using somebody's labour; but i didn't change the company. I am with this company ever since i came here. I didn't pay a dime. Why should my approved LABOUR go to trashbin when the requirement for NEW labour is same as mine. That is illogical.
I fear that this **** might become a law; I fear that future forum members will CRY and curse all of us for asking this to become a law.
it was a typo.
pls read it correctly. I know abt ac21. it was a typo.
"And further they shouldn't bring another law that Labour is for that COMPANY only. and AC21 needs another Labour. And another 140.. " and so on.
"Within 45days 140 should be filed" if this becomes law, this can even affect the original person mentioned in the labour. I said so, bcas it takes lot of time to gather all documents. This should be changed to 90days atleast with an option to get "Extension" to file 140/485.
I don't know whatelse is there in this reco doc. I couldn't read that document fully.
pls read it correctly. I know abt ac21. it was a typo.
"And further they shouldn't bring another law that Labour is for that COMPANY only. and AC21 needs another Labour. And another 140.. " and so on.
"Within 45days 140 should be filed" if this becomes law, this can even affect the original person mentioned in the labour. I said so, bcas it takes lot of time to gather all documents. This should be changed to 90days atleast with an option to get "Extension" to file 140/485.
I don't know whatelse is there in this reco doc. I couldn't read that document fully.
It is not guaranteed
9 months are not guaranteed.
9 months are not guaranteed.
hadron said:With PERM, the longest time you need to stick with a company is about 9 months (3 months for PERM, 180 days for AC-21). Eliminating substitution labor fraud will not invalidate the AC-21 law.
Your fear mongering scenario has nothing to do with substitution labor fraud and a lot with unscrupulous employers exploiting their immigrant workforce.
black_logs
Registered Users (C)
I have written to the Labor Dept. About that 45 days for filing I-140. I request you all to write a suggestion to make it 6 months or atleast 90 day here are the details
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed rule on or before April 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB42, by any of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
fraud.comments@dol.gov. Include RIN 1205-AB42 in the subject line of
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed rule on or before April 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB42, by any of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
fraud.comments@dol.gov. Include RIN 1205-AB42 in the subject line of
GreenCardVirus
Registered Users (C)
asnssf said:If this becomes LAW, you have to live with your company,CEO, Owner, HR and marketing team until you get your GC. (7-8 years)
The are not trying to change LAW. They are trying to make changes so that LAW is properly implemented.
LAW never said and will say that Labor can be Substituted.
Good job DOL. You got all the points covered in the latest rule changes. Especially, making the employer pay for GC expenses when it the employer that has control over everything.
Tickets are not transferable to others;
Tickets are not transferable to others;
Tickets expire 45 days from the date of purchase;
Now this applies to labour approvals also. But NYC merto tickets don't expire for ONE year from the date of purchase.
Law didn't explicitly mention that labour cannot be Substitued. Thats why till now USICS honoured substitued applications. Thats why this law is requested. There are so many ways to control the fraud; Not just banning the whole process which involves money and time. My suggestions:
I) Labour can be substitued only to a person who was the employee of that company from the day of PD or before the PD;
II) In case of original employees resignation, labour can be substitued to the person mentioned in item I
III) In case of the death of the original employee intended in the approval, labour can be substitued to the person mentioned in item I.
IV) In case of the death of the original employee intended in the approval, labour can be substitued to the dead employee's SPOUSE if they are qualified for that job with/without training.
V) Employee will get 90 days to collect his documents and birth certificates. And 2 exemptions can be filed for a period of 10 businessdays. Labour approvlal will expire after that.
The reason is, today PERM takes 3 months. Soon it might take more time. And approved labours will beome like TPS reports if the employee leave the company. Nobody gains from that; Only lawyers and DOL.
I think many of you are frustrated to see your friends move ahead of the queue with preapproved labours and settle in good jobs. But look at my comments above and tell me if I am wrong.
More visas and no Retrogression. That is the only solution.
Tickets are not transferable to others;
Tickets expire 45 days from the date of purchase;
Now this applies to labour approvals also. But NYC merto tickets don't expire for ONE year from the date of purchase.
Law didn't explicitly mention that labour cannot be Substitued. Thats why till now USICS honoured substitued applications. Thats why this law is requested. There are so many ways to control the fraud; Not just banning the whole process which involves money and time. My suggestions:
I) Labour can be substitued only to a person who was the employee of that company from the day of PD or before the PD;
II) In case of original employees resignation, labour can be substitued to the person mentioned in item I
III) In case of the death of the original employee intended in the approval, labour can be substitued to the person mentioned in item I.
IV) In case of the death of the original employee intended in the approval, labour can be substitued to the dead employee's SPOUSE if they are qualified for that job with/without training.
V) Employee will get 90 days to collect his documents and birth certificates. And 2 exemptions can be filed for a period of 10 businessdays. Labour approvlal will expire after that.
The reason is, today PERM takes 3 months. Soon it might take more time. And approved labours will beome like TPS reports if the employee leave the company. Nobody gains from that; Only lawyers and DOL.
I think many of you are frustrated to see your friends move ahead of the queue with preapproved labours and settle in good jobs. But look at my comments above and tell me if I am wrong.
More visas and no Retrogression. That is the only solution.
Last edited by a moderator:
folks rushing to use Sub. Labor !!!
Immiration.com
02/14/2006: Last Minute Substitution of Labor Certification and Two Caveats on USCIS Policy Changes
Ever since the news was reported that the substitutions would be eliminated in the near future, there appears to be a frenzy (?) of filing of the substitution I-140 petitions. However, those who consider change of employment to seize the opportunity of the substitution through the new employers should realize that there are two big risks involved in hastily jumping into an action. One involves the issue of the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage at the time of filing of the labor certification application and at the time of filing of substitution I-140 petition. Most of the substitution labor certification were filed years back with the old priority date. At the time the country experienced a serious down-turn of the economy and the businesses struggled to survive. Consequently, there may be a large number of businesses who filed the labor certification applications with a financial record that did not meet the financial ability to pay the proffered wage standards. Additionally, over the years, USCIS has hardened its stance on this requirement and more or less ruthlessly and strictly and narrowly applied the requirement. As a consequence, most of the cases of I-140 denials for the past two years involved the employer's inability to meet this standard. When one files a substitution I-140 petition, the employer will have to establish its financial eligibility from all the way back until the time of I-140 petition. Unlike other information, the financial picture of a corporation is a top business secret and not accessible by the alien employees. The second risk involves the USCIS change of interpretation of EB-2 and EB-3 statutory requirements, particularly the "education" requirement in the labor certification applications. In old days, the legacy INS adopted more or less flexible policies or interpretation. Consequently, when the legal counsels for the employers drafted the labor certification applications, they followed the rules and policies of the time. Unfortunately, since then the USCIS, including AAO, has adopted a restrictive and narrower interpretation of the requirements, posing a serious challenge to the eligibility of the I-140 petition for the original alien beneficiaries after years of struggle to obtain the labor certification applications from the Backlog Elimination Centers. Accordingly, some of the labor certification applicants who filed the application in early years have lately faced denial of I-140 petitions because of the changes in the USCIS interpretation and policies over the years which no one could anticipate at the time of the labor certification application. By now, everyone knows what these issues are: (1) Definition of "equivalent" in education requirement; (2) Definition of "Bachelor's Degree"; (3) Definition of "Master's Degree"; Definition of "Bachelor's Degree" in the context of "Bachelor's degree plus 5 years of progressive experience" requirement to make an EB-2 case. These changes have affected Indians more than other nationalities because of the educational systems in India. Currently, there is some indication or anticipation that the USCIS HQ may loosen up the standards on these issues, but the Service Centers, particularly Nebraska and Texas Service Centers, take a very narrow interpretation and produce a lot of denials on these issues.
This message is posted because at this time, everyone is pushed to make a quick decision on employment change to take advantage of the substitution opportunities before the law sunsets in the near future. However, people should take time to analyze and assess the risks involved as the hasty decision can bring about a deadly consequence. The rules and policies on the foregoing two issues are extremely complex and need legal professional's assistance. Please beware.
Immiration.com
02/14/2006: Last Minute Substitution of Labor Certification and Two Caveats on USCIS Policy Changes
Ever since the news was reported that the substitutions would be eliminated in the near future, there appears to be a frenzy (?) of filing of the substitution I-140 petitions. However, those who consider change of employment to seize the opportunity of the substitution through the new employers should realize that there are two big risks involved in hastily jumping into an action. One involves the issue of the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage at the time of filing of the labor certification application and at the time of filing of substitution I-140 petition. Most of the substitution labor certification were filed years back with the old priority date. At the time the country experienced a serious down-turn of the economy and the businesses struggled to survive. Consequently, there may be a large number of businesses who filed the labor certification applications with a financial record that did not meet the financial ability to pay the proffered wage standards. Additionally, over the years, USCIS has hardened its stance on this requirement and more or less ruthlessly and strictly and narrowly applied the requirement. As a consequence, most of the cases of I-140 denials for the past two years involved the employer's inability to meet this standard. When one files a substitution I-140 petition, the employer will have to establish its financial eligibility from all the way back until the time of I-140 petition. Unlike other information, the financial picture of a corporation is a top business secret and not accessible by the alien employees. The second risk involves the USCIS change of interpretation of EB-2 and EB-3 statutory requirements, particularly the "education" requirement in the labor certification applications. In old days, the legacy INS adopted more or less flexible policies or interpretation. Consequently, when the legal counsels for the employers drafted the labor certification applications, they followed the rules and policies of the time. Unfortunately, since then the USCIS, including AAO, has adopted a restrictive and narrower interpretation of the requirements, posing a serious challenge to the eligibility of the I-140 petition for the original alien beneficiaries after years of struggle to obtain the labor certification applications from the Backlog Elimination Centers. Accordingly, some of the labor certification applicants who filed the application in early years have lately faced denial of I-140 petitions because of the changes in the USCIS interpretation and policies over the years which no one could anticipate at the time of the labor certification application. By now, everyone knows what these issues are: (1) Definition of "equivalent" in education requirement; (2) Definition of "Bachelor's Degree"; (3) Definition of "Master's Degree"; Definition of "Bachelor's Degree" in the context of "Bachelor's degree plus 5 years of progressive experience" requirement to make an EB-2 case. These changes have affected Indians more than other nationalities because of the educational systems in India. Currently, there is some indication or anticipation that the USCIS HQ may loosen up the standards on these issues, but the Service Centers, particularly Nebraska and Texas Service Centers, take a very narrow interpretation and produce a lot of denials on these issues.
This message is posted because at this time, everyone is pushed to make a quick decision on employment change to take advantage of the substitution opportunities before the law sunsets in the near future. However, people should take time to analyze and assess the risks involved as the hasty decision can bring about a deadly consequence. The rules and policies on the foregoing two issues are extremely complex and need legal professional's assistance. Please beware.
Questions regarding Labor Substitution
All/Experts,
I applied for Labor in June 2004 and another employee from the same company, same job description, same group had applied in June 2003. He was recently "let go". I was wondering if I could use the labor petition filed for him. In this case:
1) How is the PD affected if/when I go in for a substituted labor ?
2) Will the PD for the purposes of filing for I-485 filing be
a) My current PD, or
b) The date of filing of the LC which I wish to use, or
c) The date when the I-485 application is filed (this option seems strange as I did not understand how will someone be able to file I-485 without the date being current due to retrogression), or
d) The date when I-140 is filed with the substituted LC ?
3) What are the repercussions on the process if this labor has not been approved ?
4) What happens to my current PD and LC ? Would I still be able to use this in case something goes wrong with the substitution ?
What would the advantages be of using a substituion vs. the disadvantages at this stage ?
This is for EB2/RIR, MD.
Thanks in advance.
All/Experts,
I applied for Labor in June 2004 and another employee from the same company, same job description, same group had applied in June 2003. He was recently "let go". I was wondering if I could use the labor petition filed for him. In this case:
1) How is the PD affected if/when I go in for a substituted labor ?
2) Will the PD for the purposes of filing for I-485 filing be
a) My current PD, or
b) The date of filing of the LC which I wish to use, or
c) The date when the I-485 application is filed (this option seems strange as I did not understand how will someone be able to file I-485 without the date being current due to retrogression), or
d) The date when I-140 is filed with the substituted LC ?
3) What are the repercussions on the process if this labor has not been approved ?
4) What happens to my current PD and LC ? Would I still be able to use this in case something goes wrong with the substitution ?
What would the advantages be of using a substituion vs. the disadvantages at this stage ?
This is for EB2/RIR, MD.
Thanks in advance.