San Francisco Regional DOL Tracker - Old (Archived on 09/23/2004)
- Thread starter gp111
- Start date
- Status
Applying for GC
hi guys,
I am working for Company A (California Based Consulting Company) from 2.5 years as Software Developer.. and I have MS degree in CS. I have 4 more years left on my H1.
One of my friend who works for Chicago based Consulting Company told me that he can ask his company people to apply for my GC as GC processing in IL is faster compared to California.
Do I need to transfer my H1 to that Chicago Company.. Or can I apply for GC with out transferring also? Coz I like my current Company and donn wanna Transfer.
in this forum I saw some people mentioning pre approved labor what is that? and where we can get that? pls advise
thanks
pran
hi guys,
I am working for Company A (California Based Consulting Company) from 2.5 years as Software Developer.. and I have MS degree in CS. I have 4 more years left on my H1.
One of my friend who works for Chicago based Consulting Company told me that he can ask his company people to apply for my GC as GC processing in IL is faster compared to California.
Do I need to transfer my H1 to that Chicago Company.. Or can I apply for GC with out transferring also? Coz I like my current Company and donn wanna Transfer.
in this forum I saw some people mentioning pre approved labor what is that? and where we can get that? pls advise
thanks
pran
pran10 said:
*** You do not need to transfer H1 for Green Card Process...
*** Preapproved labor is "Unused" Labor, say you left your company before LC /I140 approval & your company does not continue the process for you, it can be used for somebody else with matching qualification/experience... its kinda like a " LOTTO "... how do you get it ? its a million dollar question !
More approvals with RD Feb 10,2003
09546614 : 999.352-014 Certified July 30, 2004
09546618 : 999.352-014 Certified July 30, 2004
09546686 : 999.151-061 Certified July 30, 2004
09546689 : 999.151-061 Certified July 30, 2004
09546691 : 999.151-031 Certified August 02, 2004
09546693 : 999.151-051 Certified August 02, 2004
09546695 : 999.172-072 Certified August 02, 2004
09546614 : 999.352-014 Certified July 30, 2004
09546618 : 999.352-014 Certified July 30, 2004
09546686 : 999.151-061 Certified July 30, 2004
09546689 : 999.151-061 Certified July 30, 2004
09546691 : 999.151-031 Certified August 02, 2004
09546693 : 999.151-051 Certified August 02, 2004
09546695 : 999.172-072 Certified August 02, 2004
prakash12322
Registered Users (C)
How many labor applications are pending?
Could someone give us the data of how many labor applications are pending by month in SFO? From Feb 2003-August 2004. So that, we can do some guess work!!!
Could someone give us the data of how many labor applications are pending by month in SFO? From Feb 2003-August 2004. So that, we can do some guess work!!!
gcwait2002
Registered Users (C)
Carlson Memo
Carlson Memo states the below
Additional Recruitment May or May Not be Required
The remaining applications will be divided into two categories. One category is applications where the minimum stated experience and education required is at least a bachelor's degree and three additional years of experience or a master's degree and six additional months of experience. If the education and experience requirements for such applications meet these criteria and proper recruitment was performed prior to filing, the Memo directs them to be certified without retesting. In other words, the Certifying Officers are not to look at current labor market conditions when certifying these cases. These cases will only be reviewed for the adequacy of the recruitment performed prior to filing the RIR case.
The second category is for labor certifications in which the minimum requirements for the position are below a bachelor's degree and three additional years of experience or a master's degree and six additional months of experience. The Certifying Officer must review the application to determine whether the recruitment report has sufficient detail and demonstrates that recruitment was adequate. If sufficient, the labor certification will be certified. Because cases that fall into the second category are subject to the retesting provisions, it would appear that the Certifying Officer is permitted to look into current market conditions in making the determination as to whether retesting is required or whether to simply certify the case.
Does this mean some cases which have less than BS + 3 years or MS +0 Years will be approved if the recruitment was sufficient?
Carlson Memo states the below
Additional Recruitment May or May Not be Required
The remaining applications will be divided into two categories. One category is applications where the minimum stated experience and education required is at least a bachelor's degree and three additional years of experience or a master's degree and six additional months of experience. If the education and experience requirements for such applications meet these criteria and proper recruitment was performed prior to filing, the Memo directs them to be certified without retesting. In other words, the Certifying Officers are not to look at current labor market conditions when certifying these cases. These cases will only be reviewed for the adequacy of the recruitment performed prior to filing the RIR case.
The second category is for labor certifications in which the minimum requirements for the position are below a bachelor's degree and three additional years of experience or a master's degree and six additional months of experience. The Certifying Officer must review the application to determine whether the recruitment report has sufficient detail and demonstrates that recruitment was adequate. If sufficient, the labor certification will be certified. Because cases that fall into the second category are subject to the retesting provisions, it would appear that the Certifying Officer is permitted to look into current market conditions in making the determination as to whether retesting is required or whether to simply certify the case.
Does this mean some cases which have less than BS + 3 years or MS +0 Years will be approved if the recruitment was sufficient?
satyen_2003
Registered Users (C)
My Lawyer told me that she have recieved quite a few approvals eventhough exp was MS+0 yrs or BS+0yrs.
Hi,
My RD is 03/12/03. I got MS + 6 Years Exp. when I came to this country to work for a start-up. The start-up immediately started my GC process
Later the start-up got acquired by a medium(abc) company after 5 months of my joining date. The new lawyer who works abc said that the advertisement given start-up lawyer was very specific to my background and exp. And suggested that my application would run into quiries. He suggested that 'abc' to start afresh by giving a more general advertisement for my RIR app.
The new Lawyer filed RIR with MS + 0 years exp. After reading Csrini1's experience, I contacted my lawyer airing my concerns. Here is the reply I got. Thought it would be useful for the forum.
--------------------
There are a few points to consider given your concerns. First, the Carlson memorandum to which you refer was published on November 20, 2003. Your RIR was filed approximately 19 months before that memo was published, in April, 2002. So, there was no way to know that the DOL would publish such instructions to the field nearly 2 years prior to the fact. Moreover, the Carlson memorandum is a modification of previous instructions to the DOL, issued in what is called the Zeigler memorandum, which required re-testing of the job market in nearly every RIR application. The Carlson memorandum does not state that the Certifying Officer should certify all BS + 3 years or MS + 6 months applications without requesting additional information, either. It merely issues guidance that these applications should be certified without being subject to retest provisions originally outlined in the Zeigler memos. The Carlson memo does not mean that the Certifying Officer cannot review the application for completeness and compliance. It does not, for example, mean that an employer who has a history of layoffs cannot be required to retest the job market, in spite of the position requiring a Bachelor's plus 3 years, et cetera.
The Carlson memo is meant, in part, to address backlogs that were caused by the processes established in the Zeigler memorandum. The other reason why you really shouldn't be bothered by 'abc' (company name)application on your behalf is because, as I said, it is and was very common (it was the rule in most cases) for a company to require only an educational requirement, when filing an RIR. For one, if the company didn't regularly conduct recruitment that required a degree plus the correct amount of experience, then the company wouldn't be able to file the RIR application, as they wouldn't have recruitment to illustrate that they had recruited for the specific position. For a major employer that files many applications for RIR, it is important for the employer to remain consistent throughout all of their RIR applications, to better facilitate DOL approval of their applications. In your case, Cirrus Logic stated a Masters degree and no experience, because this is what they were able to illustrate as the general requirements for your position to the DOL. If you read the Carlson memo carefully, it states that the applications you mentioned should be certified, if they meet the completeness/compliance review. This review process basically refers to the general RIR review process. In order to comply, an employer must establish that they have recruited and tested the job market for a 6-month period immediately preceding the application, by illustrating a pattern of recruitment throughout the requisite period. The recruitment must evidence that it was for the specific job, or one substantially similar, to the one for which labor certification/RIR is being requested. Therefore, an employer who files many of these and is using their existing recruitment to support their various RIR application must apply stating the broadest requirements, usually. As a general rule, for the purpose of an RIR, the employer must show that they have "fished with a net" and still not found sufficient U.S. workers for the position. The more general and broad the recruitment and requirements, the more likely the RIR will succeed, if the DOL otherwise feels the employer has complied (by not laying off U.S. workers, et cetera). Stating specific requirements, has, in the past, been an invitation to a DOL challenge that the position has been tailored to the individual beneficiary, or that the requirements are otherwise unduly restrictive. abc(company name) carefully considered all their options and developed the best overall RIR strategies the company had at its disposal. There isn't much the company can do about the affect of layoffs on the RIR process, and the company certainly can't foresee changes in processing that haven't occurred, and won't occur, for maybe months or years after they file their application. Finally, the one thing of which you should also be aware is that memos like this are not law. They are only guidance, and Certifying Officers may or may not adhere to them, in varying degrees. They are not legally required to adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in any of these memos, and usually adapt them to suit their own regional needs and personal management styles. The good news is that the California DOL is about the best at adhering to DOL memorandums, and is currently the best at approving RIR applications. The rest of the country currently will not usually approve an RIR application at all, but will rather refer the case back to the State Workforce Agency for supervised recruitment. So, we can be hopeful that abc(comapny name) will succeed in getting your RIR application approved, at any rate. Good luck!
--------------------
My RD is 03/12/03. I got MS + 6 Years Exp. when I came to this country to work for a start-up. The start-up immediately started my GC process
Later the start-up got acquired by a medium(abc) company after 5 months of my joining date. The new lawyer who works abc said that the advertisement given start-up lawyer was very specific to my background and exp. And suggested that my application would run into quiries. He suggested that 'abc' to start afresh by giving a more general advertisement for my RIR app.
The new Lawyer filed RIR with MS + 0 years exp. After reading Csrini1's experience, I contacted my lawyer airing my concerns. Here is the reply I got. Thought it would be useful for the forum.
--------------------
There are a few points to consider given your concerns. First, the Carlson memorandum to which you refer was published on November 20, 2003. Your RIR was filed approximately 19 months before that memo was published, in April, 2002. So, there was no way to know that the DOL would publish such instructions to the field nearly 2 years prior to the fact. Moreover, the Carlson memorandum is a modification of previous instructions to the DOL, issued in what is called the Zeigler memorandum, which required re-testing of the job market in nearly every RIR application. The Carlson memorandum does not state that the Certifying Officer should certify all BS + 3 years or MS + 6 months applications without requesting additional information, either. It merely issues guidance that these applications should be certified without being subject to retest provisions originally outlined in the Zeigler memos. The Carlson memo does not mean that the Certifying Officer cannot review the application for completeness and compliance. It does not, for example, mean that an employer who has a history of layoffs cannot be required to retest the job market, in spite of the position requiring a Bachelor's plus 3 years, et cetera.
The Carlson memo is meant, in part, to address backlogs that were caused by the processes established in the Zeigler memorandum. The other reason why you really shouldn't be bothered by 'abc' (company name)application on your behalf is because, as I said, it is and was very common (it was the rule in most cases) for a company to require only an educational requirement, when filing an RIR. For one, if the company didn't regularly conduct recruitment that required a degree plus the correct amount of experience, then the company wouldn't be able to file the RIR application, as they wouldn't have recruitment to illustrate that they had recruited for the specific position. For a major employer that files many applications for RIR, it is important for the employer to remain consistent throughout all of their RIR applications, to better facilitate DOL approval of their applications. In your case, Cirrus Logic stated a Masters degree and no experience, because this is what they were able to illustrate as the general requirements for your position to the DOL. If you read the Carlson memo carefully, it states that the applications you mentioned should be certified, if they meet the completeness/compliance review. This review process basically refers to the general RIR review process. In order to comply, an employer must establish that they have recruited and tested the job market for a 6-month period immediately preceding the application, by illustrating a pattern of recruitment throughout the requisite period. The recruitment must evidence that it was for the specific job, or one substantially similar, to the one for which labor certification/RIR is being requested. Therefore, an employer who files many of these and is using their existing recruitment to support their various RIR application must apply stating the broadest requirements, usually. As a general rule, for the purpose of an RIR, the employer must show that they have "fished with a net" and still not found sufficient U.S. workers for the position. The more general and broad the recruitment and requirements, the more likely the RIR will succeed, if the DOL otherwise feels the employer has complied (by not laying off U.S. workers, et cetera). Stating specific requirements, has, in the past, been an invitation to a DOL challenge that the position has been tailored to the individual beneficiary, or that the requirements are otherwise unduly restrictive. abc(company name) carefully considered all their options and developed the best overall RIR strategies the company had at its disposal. There isn't much the company can do about the affect of layoffs on the RIR process, and the company certainly can't foresee changes in processing that haven't occurred, and won't occur, for maybe months or years after they file their application. Finally, the one thing of which you should also be aware is that memos like this are not law. They are only guidance, and Certifying Officers may or may not adhere to them, in varying degrees. They are not legally required to adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in any of these memos, and usually adapt them to suit their own regional needs and personal management styles. The good news is that the California DOL is about the best at adhering to DOL memorandums, and is currently the best at approving RIR applications. The rest of the country currently will not usually approve an RIR application at all, but will rather refer the case back to the State Workforce Agency for supervised recruitment. So, we can be hopeful that abc(comapny name) will succeed in getting your RIR application approved, at any rate. Good luck!
--------------------
gcwait2002 said:
The catchy word is "SUFFICIENT".Merely mentioning that "no responses were found for this particular ad" will not suffice .One has to show documentary evidence that candidates did apply for this job and they got disqualified based on company's policy or anyother reason.gcwait2002 said:
Hope this calrifies your doubt.
Please note that this is not a lawyer's advice.This is my own analysis and speculation.
Thanks
pagla said:
There were 1719 California RIR applications received by DOL in Jan 2003. It took them 8 & 1/2 weeks to go thru January. But also at the same time they processed cases received in August & Sept 2002 ( They started with August 02 to Jan 03 & after 8 week now it is Oct 02 to Feb 03)
hope this helps
satyen_2003
Registered Users (C)
Medical clearance requirements
Does anybody know what are the medical clearance requirements you have to fulfill beofre filing 140 & 485.
Does anybody know what are the medical clearance requirements you have to fulfill beofre filing 140 & 485.
satyen_2003 said:
Get I-693 from Attorney / USCIS websites & go to INS approved doctor in your area, he will examine you & find out if any vaccination required.. It is a good idea to do the before hand if you are expecting your Labor Certification soon.. real time saver as doctor may take a week or so !
Last edited by a moderator:
pagla said:Thanks man ...
It gives a rough estimate that they are processing one month in 2 months (higher side) ... But as #applications are less in Feb onwards it may speed up a little assuming they don't loose their focus
Do not forget that it took them 6 month to process the applications for November 2002 :-(.
And it is not an exception it happened before.
HopeAlive said:
Thanks for Correcting HopeAlive.. Yes its I-693...
here is the link to it
http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-693.htm
satyen_2003
Registered Users (C)
All Quiet On the Western Front
Havent heard of any approval today.
Havent heard of any approval today.
- Status