USCIS Reaches FY 2011 H-1B Cap
VIA USCIS.GOV
WASHINGTON,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it has
received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to reach the statutory cap for
fiscal year (FY) 2011. USCIS is notifying the public that yesterday, Jan.
26, 2011, is the final receipt date for new H-1B specialty occupation petitions
requesting an employment start date in FY2011.
The final receipt date is the date on which USCIS determines that it has
received enough cap-subject petitions to reach the limit of 65,000.
Properly filed cases will be considered received on the date that USCIS
physically receives the petition; not the date that the petition was
postmarked. USCIS will reject cap-subject petitions for new H-1B
specialty occupation workers seeking an employment start date in FY2011 that
arrive after Jan. 26, 2011.
USCIS will apply a computer-generated random selection process to all petitions
that are subject to the cap and were received on Jan. 26, 2011. USCIS will use
this process to select petitions needed to meet the cap. USCIS will
reject all remaining cap-subject petitions not randomly selected and will
return the accompanying fee.
On Dec. 22, 2010, USCIS had also received more than 20,000 H-1B petitions filed
on behalf of persons exempt from the cap under the advanced degree exemption.
USCIS will continue to accept and process
petitions that are otherwise exempt from the cap. Pursuant to the Immigration
and Nationality Act, petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have
been counted previously against the cap will not be counted towards the
congressionally-mandated FY2011 H-1B cap. Accordingly, USCIS will continue to
accept and process petitions filed to:
- extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the
U.S.; - change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
- allow current H-1B workers to change employers; and
- allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.
U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty
occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized
fields such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.
For more information on USCIS and its programs, visit www.uscis.gov.
H-1B Visa Program: Reforms Are Needed to Minimize the Risks and Costs of Current Program
Summary
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap’s impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time–and information about the length of their stay–is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time–particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections–such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa’s temporary status, and the cap itself–are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from “In process” to “Open,” “Closed – implemented,” or “Closed – not implemented” based on our follow up work.
| Director: | Andrew Sherrill |
| Team: | Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income Security |
| Phone: | (202) 512-7252 |
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immig
ration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor’s ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor’s Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Latest H-1B Cap Count – Almost Finished
FY 2011 H-1B Cap Count
|
Cap Type |
Cap Amount |
Cap Eligible Petitions |
Petition Target |
|
|
H-1B Regular Cap |
65,000 |
62,800 |
|
1/21/2011 |
|
H-1B Master’s Exemption |
20,000 |
20,000 |
|
1/21/2011 |
Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws
VIA http://www.immigrationpolicy.org
*For Immediate Release*
* *
*Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws:
**What You Need to Know If Your State is Considering Arizona SB1070-Type
Legislation*
* *
*January 12, 2011*
* *
*Washington** D.C.* – In 2010, Arizona passed a controversial immigration
law known as SB1070. Despite numerous court challenges – resulting in major
parts of the bill being enjoined – and criticism from political, religious,
civil-rights, and law-enforcement leaders, state legislators around the
nation are forging ahead on similar legislation in their states. Today, the
Immigration Policy Center releases *Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws:
What You Need to Know If Your State is Considering Arizona SB1070-Type
Legislation
*. (located at http://goo.gl/UnQCM)
While the growing frustration with our broken immigration system is
understandable, “papers please” laws are not the answer. There is plenty of
evidence to suggest that the enforcement-only strategy, which SB1070 and
other copycat laws adopt, does not solve our immigration problems. Yet
it obligates strapped state governments to spend millions of dollars in
implementation, legal defense, and other collateral costs.
This guide provides key answers to basic questions about state
immigration-related laws – from the substance of the legislation and myths
surrounding the debate to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states
contemplate legislation similar to SB1070, knowing the answers to these
basic questions is critically important in furthering a rational discussion..
*To view the guide in its entirety, see:*
– *Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws: What You Need to Know If Your
State is Considering Arizona SB1070-Type
Legislation
*(located at http://goo.gl/UnQCM)
–
###
For additional information contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or
202-507-7524.
___________________________________________________________________________
The Immigration Policy
Center(IPC),
established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration
Council. IPC’s mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration
and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides
policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information
about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC
reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and
policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol
Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC is a non-partisan organization that
neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office
Division of the American Immigration Council.
‘US violated GATS by increasing H1B, L1 visa fee’ – Via The Economic Times
USCIS’ Handbook for Employers – Instructions for Completing Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification Form)
VIA USCIS
Visa Bulletin For February 2011
A. STATUTORY NUMBERS
1. This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers duringFebruary. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status. Allocations were made, to the extent possible under the numerical limitations, for the demand received by January 11thin the chronological order of the reported priority dates. If the demand could not be satisfied within the statutory or regulatory limits, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits.
Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number. Immediately that it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date which has been announced in this bulletin.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
3. Section 203 of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of immigrant visas as follows:
FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES
First: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.
Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:
A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;
B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.
Third: Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.
Fourth: Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to “Other Workers”.
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
4. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
5. On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); “C” means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and “U” means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
| Family | All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed | CHINA-mainland born | DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | INDIA | MEXICO | PHILIPPINES |
| 1st | 01JAN05 | 01JAN05 | 01JAN05 | 01JAN05 | 22JAN93 | 01AUG94 |
| 2A | 01JAN08 | 01JAN08 | 01JAN08 | 01JAN08 | 01APR05 | 01JAN08 |
| 2B | 15APR03 | 15APR03 | 01JAN97 | 15APR03 | 01JUL92 | 01JUN99 |
| 3rd | 01JAN01 | 01JAN01 | 01JAN01 | 01JAN01 | 22NOV92 | 22OCT91 |
| 4th | 01JAN00 | 01JAN00 | 01JAN00 | 01JAN00 | 01JAN96 | 15JAN88 |
*NOTE: For February, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01APR05. 2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01APR05 and earlier than 01JAN08. (All 2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
| Employment- Based |
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed |
CHINA- mainland born | DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | INDIA | MEXICO | PHILIPPINES |
| 1st | C | C | C | C | C | C |
| 2nd | C | 01JUL06 | C | 08MAY06 | C | C |
| 3rd | 01APR05 | 01JAN04 | 01APR05 | 22FEB02 | 08JUL03 | 01APR05 |
| Other Workers | 01MAY03 | 22APR03 | 01MAY03 | 22FEB02 | 01MAY03 | 01MAY03 |
| 4th | C | C | C | C | C | C |
| Certain Religious Workers | C | C | C | C | C | C |
| 5th | C | C | C | C | C | C |
| Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers | C | C | C | C | C | C |
| 5th Pilot Programs | C | C | C | C | C | C |
The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY
Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-2011 annual limit being reduced to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.
For February, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
| Region | All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately | |
|---|---|---|
| AFRICA | 26,100 | Except: Egypt 20,200 Ethiopia 15,000 Nigeria 12,100 |
| ASIA | 14,850 | |
| EUROPE | 17,600 | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | 7 | |
| OCEANIA | 810 | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | 900 |
Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2011 program ends as of September 30, 2011. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2011 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2011 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2011. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2011 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN MARCH
For March, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
| Region | All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately | |
|---|---|---|
| AFRICA | 31,950 | Except: Egypt 24,275 Ethiopia 18,650 Nigeria 13,100 |
| ASIA | 17,200 | |
| EUROPE | 20,450 | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | 7 | |
| OCEANIA | 900 | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | 1,025 |
D. RETROGRESSION OF FAMILY CUT-OFF DATES
Continued heavy applicant demand for numbers in the Family Fourth preference category has required the retrogression of the Worldwide, China-mainland born, Dominican Republic, and India cut-off date for the month of February.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Dominican Republic F2B category for the month of February.
Further retrogressions cannot be ruled out should demand continue at the current levels for some categories and countries.
Please Note: Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a p
riority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported documentarily qualified each month, compared with the amount of available numbers. For example, during the past month, over 17,300 of the applicants who have become documentarily qualified in the Family preference categories have priority dates earlier than the cut-off dates established for January. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
Following are examples of possible cut-off date actions based on demand:
| Numbers Available |
Demand with Priority Dates Prior to the Current Cut-off |
Next Month’s Cut-off Date Will |
|
3,000 |
1,000 3,000 5,000 |
Advance Remain the same Retrogress |
E. OBTAINING THE MONTHLY VISA BULLETIN
The Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs offers the monthly “Visa Bulletin” on the INTERNET’S WORLDWIDE WEB. The INTERNET Web address to access the Bulletin is:
From the home page, select the VISA section which contains the Visa Bulletin.
To be placed on the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, please send an E-mail to the following E-mail address:
and in the message body type:
Subscribe Visa-Bulletin First name/Last name
(example: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin Sally Doe)
To be removed from the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, send an e-mail message to the following E-mail address:
and in the message body type: Signoff Visa-Bulletin
The Department of State also has available a recorded message with visa cut-off dates which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. The recording is normally updated by the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Readers may submit questions regarding Visa Bulletin related items by
E-mail at the following address:
(This address cannot be used to subscribe to the Visa Bulletin.)
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO: January 11, 2010
Mumbai Erroneously Reports Availability of India EB-2
VIA AILA
Information on the Legal Rights Available to Immigrant Victims of Domestic Violence in the United States and Facts about Immigrating on a Marriage-Based Visa
VIA USCIS
January 7, 2011 H-1B Cap Count
As of January 7, 2011, approximately 58,700 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. Additionally, USCIS has receipted 20,000 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees.
US Department of State Announces a Redesigned Birth Abroad Certificate
Media Note
The Department of State is pleased to announce the introduction of a redesigned Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA). The CRBA is an official record confirming that a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. The redesigned document has state-of-the-art security features that make it extremely resistant to alterations or forgery.
CRBAs have been printed at U.S. Embassies and Consulates around the world since their introduction in 1919. Effective January 3, 2011, CRBAs will be printed at our passport facilities in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and New Orleans, Louisiana. Centralizing production and eliminating the distribution of controlled blank form stock throughout the world ensures improved uniform quality and lessens the threat of fraud.
Applications for U.S. passports and the redesigned CRBA will also use the title of “parent” as opposed to “mother” and “father.” These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.
For media inquiries regarding the CRBA, please contact CAPRESSREQUESTS@state.gov or 202-647-1488.
PRN: 2010.1854
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Bloomberg BusinessWeek Article – H-1B Visas: A Modest Proposal for Immigration Reform