October 14, 2011 H-1B Cap Count
As of 10/14/2011, about 43,300 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. USCIS has receipted 19,600 H-1B petitions for advanced degree aliens.
OIG Audit Report on Use of SSNs by H-1B Workers
USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the “Employee-Employer Relationship” in H-1B Petitions
VIA USCIS.GOV
Published Jan. 13, 2010; revised Aug. 2, 2011
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated guidance to adjudication officers to clarify what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship to qualify for the H-1B ‘specialty occupation’ classification. The memorandum clarifies such relationships, particularly as it pertains to independent contractors, self-employed beneficiaries, and beneficiaries placed at third-party worksites. The memorandum is titled: “Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements: Additions to Officer’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 31.3(g)(15)(AFM Update AD 10-24).” In addition to clarifying the requirements for a valid employer-employee relationship, the memorandum also discusses the types of evidence petitioners may provide to establish that an employer-employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period.
Questions & Answers
Q: Does this memorandum change any of the requirements to establish eligibility for an H-1B petition?
A: No. This memorandum does not change any of the requirements for an H-1B petition. The H-1B regulations currently require that a United States employer establish that it has an employer-employee relations with respect to the beneficiary, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise or otherwise control the work of any such employee. In addition to demonstrating that a valid employer-employee relationship will exist between the petitioner and the beneficiary, the petitioner must continue to comply with all of the requirements for an H-1B petition including:
- establishing that the beneficiary is coming to the United States temporarily to work in a specialty occupation;
- demonstrating that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation; and
- filing of a Labor Condition Application (LCA) specific to each location where the beneficiary will perform services.
Q: What factors does USCIS consider when evaluating the employer-employee relationship?
A: As stated in the memorandum, USCIS wi
ll evaluate whether the petitioner has the “right to control” the beneficiary’s employment, such as when, where and how the beneficiary performs the job. Please see the memorandum in the links in the upper right hand of this page for a list of factors that USCIS will review when determining whether the petitioner has the right to control the beneficiary. Please note that no one factor is decisive and adjudicators will review the totality of the circumstances when making a determination as to whether the employer-employee relationship exists.
Q: What types of evidence can I provide to demonstrate that I have a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary?
A: You may demonstrate that you have a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary by submitting the types of evidence outlined in the memorandum or similar probative types of evidence.
Q: What if I cannot submit the evidence listed in the memorandum?
A: The documents listed in the memorandum are only examples of evidence that establish the petitioner’s right to control the beneficiary’s employment. Unless a document is required by the regulations, i.e. an itinerary, you may provide similarly probative documents. You may submit a combination of any documents that sufficiently establish that the required relationship between you and the beneficiary exists. You should explain how the documents you are providing establish the relationship. Adjudicators will review and weigh all the evidence submitted to determine whether a qualifying employer-employee relationship has been established.
Q: What if I receive or have received an RFE requesting that I submit a particular type of evidence and I do not have the exact type of document listed in the RFE?
A: If the type of evidence requested in the RFE is not a document that is required by regulations, you may submit other similar probative evidence that addresses the issue(s) raised in the RFE. You should explain how the documents you are providing address the deficiency(ies) raised in the RFE. Adjudicators will review and weigh all evidence based on the totality of the circumstances. Please note that you cannot submit similar evidence in place of documents required by regulation.
Q: Will my petition be denied if I cannot establish that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist?
A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you may be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). Your petition will be denied if you do not provide sufficiently probative evidence that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for any time period.
Q: What if I can only establish that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for a portion of the requested validity period?
A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you may be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). Your petition may still be approved if you provide evidence that a qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for a portion of the requested validity period (as long as all other requirements are met), however, USCIS will limit a petition’s validity to the time period of qualifying employment established by the evidence.
Q: What happens if I am filing a petition requesting a “Continuation of previously approved employment without change” or “Change in previously approved employment” and an extension of stay for the beneficiary in H-1B classification, but I did not maintain a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary during the validity of the previous petition?
A: Your extension petition will be denied if USCIS determines that you did not maintain a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary throughout the validity period of the previous petition. The only exception is if there is a compelling reason to approve the new petition (e.g. you are able to demonstrate that you did not meet all of the terms and conditions through no fault of your own). Such exceptions would be limited and made on a case-by-case basis.
Q: What if I am filing a petition requesting a “Change of Employer” and an extension of stay for the beneficiary’s H-1B classification? Would my petition be adjudicated under the section of the memorandum that deals with extension petitions?
A: No. The section of the memorandum that covers extension petitions applies solely to petitions filed by the same employer to extend H-1B status without a material change in the original terms of employment. All other petitions will be adjudicated in accordance with the section of the memorandum that covers initial petitions.
Q: I am a petitioner who will be employing the beneficiary to perform services in more than one work location. Do I need to submit an itinerary in support of my petition?
A: Yes. You will need to submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements, as described in the memo, in order to comply with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) if you are employing the beneficiary to perform services in more than one work location. Furthermore, you must comply with Department of Labor regulations requiring that you file an LCA specific to each work location for the beneficiary.
Q: The memorandum provides an example of when a beneficiary, who is the sole owner of the petitioner, would not establish a valid employer-employee relationship. Are there any examples of when a beneficiary, who is the sole owner of the petitioner, may be able to establish a valid em
ployer-employee relationship?
A. Yes. In footnotes 9 and 10 of the memorandum, USCIS indicates that while a corporation may be a separate legal entity from its stockholders or sole owner, it may be difficult for that corporation to establish the requisite employer-employee relationship for purposes of an H-1B petition. However, if the facts show that there is a right to control by the petitioner over the employment of the beneficiary, then a valid employer-employee relationship may be established. For example, if the petitioner provides evidence that there is a separate Board of Directors which has the ability to hire, fire, pay, supervise or otherwise control the beneficiary, the petitioner may be able to establish an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary.
Q: What happens if I do not submit evidence of the employer-employee relationship with my initial petition?
A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you will be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). However, failure to provide this information with the initial submission will delay processing of your petition.
Transcript: Press Conference on Initiatives to Promote Startup Enterprised and Spur Job Creation, Aug. 2, 2011
H-1B CAP COUNT AS OF 06/24/2011
As of June 24, 2011, approximately 17,400 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. Additionally, USCIS has receipted 11,300 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees.
H-1B Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Cap Count as of 06/25/2011
FY 2012 H-1B Cap Count
|
Cap Type |
Cap Amount |
Cap Eligible Petitions |
Date of Last Count |
|---|---|---|---|
|
H-1B Regular Cap |
65,000 |
13,100 |
5/26/2011 |
|
H-1B Master’s Exemption |
20,000 |
9,000 |
5/26/2011 |
Cap Eligible Petitions
This is the number of petitions that USCIS has accepted for this particular type of cap. It includes cases that have been approved or are still pending. It does not include petitions that have been denied.
Cap Amounts
The current annual cap on the H-1B category is 65,000. Not all H-1B nonimmigrants are subject to this annual cap. Please note that up to 6,800 visas are set aside from the cap of 65,000 during each fiscal year for the H-1B1 program under the terms of the legislation implementing the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Unused numbers in this pool are made available for H-1B use for the next fiscal year.
Questions about Same or Similar Occupational Classifications Under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21)
Introduction
Section 106(c) of AC21, commonly known as the job flexibility provision, was enacted as Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 204(j). This portion of the INA is provided below for convenience:
A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D) [redesignated as (a)(1)(F)] for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
This section of law allows certain aliens to change or port the offer of employment on which their adjustment of status application is based from one job to another job as long as both jobs are in the same or similar occupational classification. Within these questions and answers, the term “port” or “porting” means to change the offer of employment from one job to another job in a way that allows an applicant to remain eligible to adjust status without having to file a new I-140 immigrant petition. For an alien to change the offer of employment, his or her adjustment of status application, Form I-485, must have been pending with USCIS for 180 days or more.
Questions and Answers
Q1. What is an “occupational classification”?
A1. The Department of Labor (DOL) uses the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system to group and classify jobs and occupations. The purpose of the SOC system is to classify workers into occupational categories to organize occupational data. The SOC system covers all occupations where work is performed for pay or for profit. Occupations are categorized based on the type of work performed. Additionally, certain occupations are also classified based on the skills, education and training required to perform the job.
The SOC system is organized using codes, which generally consist of six numerical digits. For example, the SOC code for a stonemason is 47-2022.
- [47]-2022: The first two digits, “47” represent the major group, which includes all construction and extraction occupations.
- 47-[2]022: The third digit, “2” represents the minor group, which includes all construction trade workers.
- 47-2[02]2: The forth and fifth digits, “02” represent the broad occupation, which includes brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons.
- 47-202[2]: The sixth digit, “2” represents the detailed occupation, which only includes stonemasons.
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2000 Construction Trades Workers
47-2020 Brickmasons, Blockmasons, and Stonemasons
47-2022 Stonemasons
No occupation will be assigned to more than one category at the lowest level of the classification (sixth digit). A USCIS memo titled, Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313) (December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo) instructed USCIS officers to consider the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) code as part of the same or similar occupational classification analysis. The DOT has been replaced by the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) under the sponsorship of DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA). The O*NET system relies upon the SOC codes.
Q2. How does USCIS determine what qualifies as a same or similar occupational classification?
A2. USCIS generally makes a determination as to whether one job is in the “same or similar” occupational classification as another by referring to the DOL’s SOC system. USCIS officers also consider multiple factors to conclude if two jobs are considered to be in similar occupational classifications for porting purposes (see above question for definition of “porting”). USCIS officers may compare factors including, but not limited to:
- The job duties of both positions
- The SOC code from the Immig
rant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) and the appropriate SOC code for the new position - The wages associated with each position
USCIS officers will view the totality of the circumstances to determine if the two jobs are the same or similar for porting purposes.
Q3. Does USCIS only use the first two or the first three numbers of the SOC code to determine if two occupational classifications are same or similar?
A3. As noted above, USCIS does not use a simple numerical comparison of SOC codes to determine if two jobs are the same or similar. USCIS aims to determine in all cases whether a new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original job offer.
When referring to the SOC system, USCIS will analyze the SOC codes of the two jobs it is comparing. However, there is no hard and fast rule for matching any particular order of digits in two SOC codes.
In the example in Q.1, the “47” encompasses all construction and extraction occupations, which is a broad category and would not determine whether two jobs are similar. In this particular example, even matching additional digits of the SOC codes may not show whether or not two jobs are similar.
For example, the SOC code for a stonemason is 47-2022. The job description for a stonemason is:
Build stone structures, such as piers, walls, and abutments. Lay walks, curbstones, or special types of masonry for vats, tanks, and floors.
The SOC code for a boilermaker is 47-2010, which contains the same first four numbers of the stonemason’s SOC code (47-20). However, the job description for a boilermaker is significantly different from that of stonemason:
Construct, assemble, maintain, and repair stationary steam boilers and boiler house auxiliaries. Align structures or plate sections to assemble boiler frame tanks or vats, following blueprints. Work involves use of hand and power tools, plumb bobs, levels, wedges, dogs, or turnbuckles. Assist in testing assembled vessels. Direct cleaning of boilers and boiler furnaces. Inspect and repair boiler fittings, such as safety valves, regulators, automatic-control mechanisms, water columns, and auxiliary machines.
Q4. The December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo states that a discrepancy between the wages of two jobs may be used to decide if the two positions are the same or similar, but the memo also states that a difference in the wages of the two jobs cannot be used as the sole basis for denial in adjustment of status portability cases. Can USCIS provide further explanation on how wages are used to determine whether two jobs are in the same or similar occupational classification?
A4. Section I, Question 3 from the December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo provides USCIS officers with the flexibility to consider a “substantial discrepancy” in the wages offered in two positions to
assist them in deciding if the two jobs are in the same or a similar occupational classification. A “substantial discrepancy” in the wages of the two jobs may be a contributing factor in a denial when the evidence is considered in its totality. However, a USCIS officer should not deny a case solely because a second position pays more or less than the original.
Section 1, Question 5 from the December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo references a “difference” in the wages to inform both USCIS officers and the public that a difference in wages should not be used as the sole basis for a denial. This means there can be an allowance for normal raises that occur through the passage of time to account for inflation and other factors such as higher rates of pay in different metropolitan locations.
Q5. Can I accept a different position or receive a promotion from my employer and remain eligible to adjust my status to permanent residence?
A5. USCIS will evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis. The job duties for each position, the SOC codes for each position, and any differences in the wages will be the determining factors as to whether you remain eligible. Regardless of whether the new job is considered a demotion, a lateral move or a promotion within the company for which the beneficiary is employed, the job duties must be sufficiently similar. USCIS officers will view the totality of the circumstances in light of the congressional intent, expressed in INA section 204(j), as enacted by 106(c) of AC21, to facilitate job mobility within the same or similar occupational classification for qualifying aliens with long-pending adjustment applications.
Last updated:04/07/2011
USCIS to Start Accepting H-1B Petitions for FY 2012 on April 1, 2011
VIA USCIS
March 18, 2011
WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it will start accepting H-1B petitions subject to the fiscal year (FY) 2012 cap on April 1, 2011. Cases will be considered accepted on the date USCIS receives a properly filed petition for which the correct fee has been submitted; not the date that the petition is postmarked.
U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. Such workers include scientists, engineers, and computer programmers, among others.
The cap (the numerical limit on H-1B petitions) for FY 2012 is 65,000. The first 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of individuals with U.S. master’s degrees or higher are exempt.
USCIS will monitor the number of H-1B petitions received and will notify the public of the date when the numerical limit of the H-1B cap has been met. This date is known as the final receipt date. If USCIS receives more petitions than it can accept, it may on the final receipt date randomly select the number of petitions that will be considered for final inclusion within the cap. USCIS will reject petitions that are subject to the cap and are not selected, as well as petitions received after it has the necessary number of petitions needed to meet the cap.
In addition to petitions filed on behalf of people with U.S. master’s degrees or higher, certain other petitions are exempt from the congressionally mandated cap.
Petitions for new H-1B employment are exempt from the annual cap if the beneficiaries will work at:
-
Institutions of higher education or related or affiliated nonprofit entities;
-
Nonprofit research organizations; or
-
Governmental research organizations.
Petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries who will work only in Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands are exempt from the cap until Dec. 31, 2014. Employers may continue to file petitions for these cap-exempt H-1B categories for beneficiaries who will start work during FY 2011 or 2012.
Petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap do not count towards the H-1B cap. USCIS will continue to process petitions filed to:
-
Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
-
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.
H-1B petitioners should follow all statutory and regulatory requirements as they prepare petitions, to avoid delays in processing and possible requests for evidence. USCIS has posted on its website detailed information, including a processing worksheet, to assist in the completion and submission of a FY2012 H-1B petition.
For more information on the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program and current Form I-129 processing times, visit www.uscis.gov or call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.
Last updated:03/18/2011
H-1B Cap Exemptions Based on Relation or Affiliation
Update as of March 18, 2011
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today, in response to recent stakeholder feedback, that it is currently reviewing its policy on H-1B cap exemptions for non-profit entities that are related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education. Until further guidance is issued, USCIS is temporarily applying interim procedures to H-1B non-profit entity petitions filed with the agency seeking an exemption from the statutory H-1B numerical cap based on an affiliation with or relation to an institution of higher education.
Effective immediately, during this interim period USCIS will give deference to prior determinations made since June 6, 2006, that a non-profit entity is related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education – absent any significant change in circumstances or clear error in the prior adjudication – and, therefore, exempt from the H-1B statutory cap. However, the burden remains on the petitioner to show that its organization previously received approvals of its request for H-1B cap exemption as a non-profit entity that is related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education.
Petitioners may satisfy this burden by providing USCIS with evidence such as a copy of the previously approved cap-exempt petition (i.e. Form I-129 and pertinent attachments) and the previously issued applicable I-797 approval notice issued by USCIS since June 6, 2006, and any documentation that was submitted in support of the claimed cap exemption. Furthermore, USCIS suggests that petitioners include a statement attesting that their organization was approved as cap-exempt since June 6, 2006.
USCIS emphasizes that these measures will only remain in place on an interim basis. USCIS will engage the public on any forthcoming guidance.
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant visa that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. Unless determined to be exempt, H-1B petitions are subject to either the 65,000 statutory cap or the 20,000 statutory visa cap exemption. By statute, H-1B visas are subject to an annual numerical limit, or cap, of 65,000 visas each fiscal year. The first 20,000 petitions for these visas filed on behalf of individuals with U.S. master’s degrees or higher are exempt from this cap.
Evidence of previous determinations of cap exemption, as discussed in this Update, will be considered on a case by case basis only when submitted with a Form I-129 petition for H-1B status requesting exemption from the numerical cap, or in response to a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny for H-1B petitions currently pending with USCIS claiming exemption from the cap. Petitioners are accordingly advised not to send separate correspondence containing their cap-exemption evidence to USCIS on this issue.
Last updated:03/18/2011
USCIS to Start Accepting H-1B Petitions for FY 2012 on April 1, 2011
WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it will start accepting H-1B petitions subject to the fiscal year (FY) 2012 cap on April 1, 2011. Cases will be considered accepted on the date USCIS receives a properly filed petition for which the correct fee has been submitted; not the date that the petition is postmarked.
U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. Such workers include scientists, engineers, and computer programmers, among others.
The cap (the numerical limit on H-1B petitions) for FY 2012 is 65,000. The first 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of individuals with U.S. master’s degrees or higher are exempt.
USCIS will monitor the number of H-1B petitions received and will notify the public of the date when the numerical limit of the H-1B cap has been met. This date is known as the final receipt date. If USCIS receives more petitions than it can accept, it may on the final receipt date randomly select the number of petitions that will be considered for final inclusion within the cap. USCIS will reject petitions that are subject to the cap and are not selected, as well as petitions received after it has the necessary number of petitions needed to meet the cap.
In addition to petitions filed on behalf of people with U.S. master’s degrees or higher, certain other petitions are exempt from the congressionally mandated cap.
Petitions for new H-1B employment are exempt from the annual cap if the beneficiaries will work at:
-
Institutions of higher education or related or affiliated nonprofit entities;
-
Nonprofit research organizations; or
-
Governmental research organizations.
Petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries who will work only in Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands are exempt from the cap until Dec. 31, 2014. Employers may continue to file petitions for these cap-exempt H-1B categories for beneficiaries who will start work during FY 2011 or 2012.
Petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap do not count towards the H-1B cap. USCIS will continue to process petitions filed to:
-
Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
-
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.
H-1B petitioners should follow all statutory and regulatory requirements as they prepare petitions, to avoid delays in processing and possible requests for evidence. USCIS has posted on its website detailed information, including a processing worksheet, to assist in the completion and submission of a FY2012 H-1B petition.
For more information on the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program and current Form I-129 processing times, visit www.uscis.gov or call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.
Last updated:03/18/2011
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.
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Alleged large-scale visa fraud at Infosys could actually be legal
Infosys was recently alleged to have illegally utilized B-1 visas instead of H-1Bs and to have illegally withheld requisite U.S. taxes.
However, Infosys’ actions re: the non-payment of federal or state income taxes, and the use of B-1 visas instead of H-1Bs could be justified: see Foreign Affairs Manual notes at 9 FAM 41.31 N11, N11.1 9 FAM 41.31 N11, N11.1 regarding B-1 visa use in leiu of H-1Bs. If a B-1 worker and the position qualify under the enumerated provisions, they are not to be paid a salary in the US, instead, they are to be paid in overseas funds by the Infosys India. Therefore it may be that Infosys cannot legally pay the taxes which are at the heart of the controversy. As for the use of B-1 visas instead of H-1Bs, it is allowable under certain circumstances which are not elaborated upon in the linked story.
Per 9 FAM 41.31 N11, “ALIENS NORMALLY CLASSIFIABLE H-1 OR H-3”,
“There are cases in which aliens who qualify for H-1 or H-3 visas may more appropriately be classified as B-1 visa applicants in certain circumstances; e.g., a qualified H-1 or H-3 visa applicant coming to the United States to perform H-1 services or to participate in a training program. In such a case, the applicant must not receive any salary or other remuneration from a U.S. source other than an expense allowance or other reimbursement for expenses incidental to the alien’s temporary stay. For purposes of this Note, it is essential that the remuneration or source of income for services performed in the United States continue to be provided by the business entity located abroad, and that the alien meets the following criteria:
(1) With regard to foreign-sourced remuneration for services performed by aliens admitted under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(B), the Department has maintained that where a U.S. business enterprise or entity has a separate business enterprise abroad, the salary paid by such foreign entity shall not be considered as coming from a “U.S. source;”
(2) In order for an employer to be considered a “foreign firm” the entity must have an office abroad and its payroll must be disbursed
abroad. To qualify for a B-1 visa, the employee must customarily
be employed by the foreign firm, the employing entity must pay the employee’s salary, and the source of the employee’s salary must be
abroad…”
Also, 9 FAM 41.31 N11.1 “Incidental Expenses or Remuneration” indicates,
“A nonimmigrant in B-1 status may not receive a salary from a U.S. source for services rendered in connection with his or her activities in the United States. A U.S. source, however, may provide the alien with an expense allowance or reimbursement for expenses incidental to the temporary stay.
Incidental expenses may not exceed the actual reasonable expenses the alien will incur in traveling to and from the event, together with living expenses the alien reasonably can be expected to incur for meals, lodging, laundry, and other basic services.”