Document on Tax Exemption for OPT Students and Students on F1B visa

In response to question asked by few posters on document or proof stating that OPT students are not required to pay Social Security Taxes and Medicare tax, please see document excerpt and link to the document below. You can share it with your employer. Please note even if you are on OPT, your non-immigrant status is F1B.

As per IRS site these are the following excerpt

Social Security and Medicare Taxes:

If you work as an employee in the United States, you must pay social security and Medicare taxes in most cases. Your payments of these taxes contribute to your coverage under the U.S. social security system. Social security coverage provides retirement benefits, survivors and disability benefits, and medical insurance (Medicare) benefits to individuals who meet certain eligibility requirements.

In most cases, the first $106,800 of taxable wages received in 2009 for services performed in the United States is subject to social security tax. All taxable wages are subject to Medicare tax. Your employer deducts these taxes from each wage payment. Your employer must deduct these taxes even if you do not expect to qualify for social security or Medicare benefits. You can claim a credit for excess social security tax on your income tax return if you have more than one employer and the amount deducted from your combined wages for 2009 is more than $6,621.60. Use the appropriate worksheet in chapter 3 of Publication 505, Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax, to figure your credit.

If any one employer deducted more than $6,621.60, you cannot claim a credit for that amount. Ask your employer to refund the excess. If your employer does not refund the excess, you can file a claim for refund using Form 843

In general, U.S. social security and Medicare taxes apply to payments of wages for services performed as an employee in the United States, regardless of the citizenship or residence of either the employee or the employer. In limited situations, these taxes apply to wages for services performed outside the United States. Your employer should be able to tell you if social security and Medicare taxes apply to your wages. You cannot make voluntary payments if no taxes are due.
Students and Exchange Visitors :

Generally, services performed by you as a nonresident alien temporarily in the United States as a nonimmigrant under subparagraph (F), (J), (M), or (Q) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act are not covered under the social security program if the services are performed to carry out the purpose for which you were admitted to the United States. This means that there will be no withholding of social security or Medicare taxes from the pay you receive for these services. These types of services are very limited, and generally include only on-campus work, practical training, and economic hardship employment.

Social security and Medicare taxes will be withheld from your pay for these services if you are considered a resident alien as discussed in chapter 1, even though your nonimmigrant classification (“F,” “J,” “M,” or “Q”) remains the same.

Services performed by a spouse or minor child of nonimmigrant aliens with the classification of “F-2,” “J-2,” “M-2,” and “Q-3” are covered under social security.

Nonresident Alien Student :

If you are a nonresident alien temporarily admitted to the United States as a student, you generally are not permitted to work for a wage or salary or to engage in business while you are in the United States. In some cases, a student admitted to the United States in “F-1,” “M-1,” or “J-1” status is granted permission to work. Social security and Medicare taxes are not withheld from pay for the work unless the student is considered a resident alien.

Please point your employers to this link from IRS and see section "Social Security and Medical Taxes". Remember this hold only if you are considered non-resident alien for tax purposes. Social security and Medicare taxes will be withheld from your pay for these services if you are considered a resident alien as discussed in chapter 1, even though your nonimmigrant classification (“F,” “J,” “M,” or “Q”) remains the same.

Definition of Resident Alien :

Resident aliens generally are taxed on their worldwide income, similar to U.S. citizens.To be classified as a resident alien, the individual must meet one of two tests:

Green Card

A non-resident alien is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. at any time if they have been given the privilege, according to the immigration laws, of residing permanently as an immigrant. This status usually exists if the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has issued a green card.

Substantial Presence in US

A non-resident alien is classified as a resident alien for tax purposes if they were physically present in the U.S. for 31 days during the current year and 183 days during a three-year period that includes the current year and the two years immediately before that.

Visa Bulletin - January 2011

January 2011 Visa Bulletin was released on 9th December 2010. As predicted there was no major movement for employment based category. Major movement for the EB-2 employment based category for India and China will be seen in month of June-July 2011, only when unused visa numbers will be available due to spillover from EB2- ROW and EB-1 . Until then one should expect small or no movement in EB-2 category. Eb-3 movement will still be at snail pace for rest of the year. Family Based category would see retrogression for rest of the year.

Family Based :

As per January Visa Bulletin, family categories had seen as much of the advancement of the last two years has been reversed with major retrogression.

"As reported in the December Visa Bulletin (number 27), the cut-off dates for most family preference categories advanced at a very rapid pace during the past two years. Those movements have resulted in a dramatic increase in the level of applicant demand received in recent months. This has required the retrogression of many Family preference cut-off dates for January in an effort to hold number use within the various numerical limits. Further retrogression cannot be ruled out should demand continue at the current levels" (emphasis added)."




Employment Based :

The only good news was a ten month jump for Mexico EB-3 cases.

Employment 1st - still current in all categories.

Employment 2nd - weak movement for India and China; just a two week improvement for China (22 June 2006) and stalled again for India (8 May 2006).

Employment 3rd - modest movement; one month advance for most countries to 22 March 2005; one week advance for China to 15 December 2003; India moves up one week to 1 February 2002. Mexico jumps 10 months to 15 April 2003 and the Philippines jumps a month to 22 March 2005.

Employment 3rd Other Workers – most countries remain stalled at 22 April 2003; India moves up one week to 1 February 2002; Mexico jumps 10 months to 15 April 2003.

Employment 4th - still current in all categories.

Employment 5th - still current in all categories.

Family Based Priority Dates may Retrogress or will be 'Unavailable' for rest of FY 2011

As per recent report by "USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Service Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report", it suggests that all available family-based visas will be used by the end of FY 2010. It is very likelihood that Family Based VIsa Numbers will either retrogress or will be unavailable for rest of the fiscal year 2011.

Please see excerpt from the report below

C. Family-Based Immigration
USCIS has worked extensively to reduce the number of pending I-130s. In January 2009, approximately 1.2 million preference category I-130s were pending. As of August 2010, the number of pending cases stands at less than 350,000 – representing a 70-percent reduction in pending inventory. Because USCIS is working rapidly to eliminate the backlog of pending I-130 petitions, it is imperative, as the CISOMB notes, that petitioners notify USCIS of any address changes. As a point of clarification, USCIS will deny the petition, not terminate it,10 if USCIS does not receive a response to the Request for Evidence (RFE). Because failure to respond to an RFE will result in a denial, it is very important that the petitioner keep USCIS informed of any mailing address changes. USCIS appreciates any assistance the CISOMB can provide in relaying this message to customers.

The CISOMB reported that demand for family-based visas has been low and cautioned that a significant number of family-based visas may go unused in FY2010. Since the release of the Annual Report, however, USCIS and DOS have made significant progress in addressing this issue and anticipate that all available family-based visas will be used by the end of FY 2010.

H1B FY 2011 Cap Count - 17 December 2010

These are the latest update on H1B FY 2011 CAP Count. The readers should remember that available cap numbers for regular cap cases are not 65,000. Not all H-1B visa are subject to this annual cap. Please note that up to 6,800 visas may be 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. Also when number is reached for Masters Cap, all Masters application will start using the numbers from Regular Cap Case. H1B FY 2011 Quota would likely be reached by New Years.

H1B FY 2011 Cap Count
Regular Cap Reached	53900
Regular Cap Limit	65000
Masters Cap Reached	19700
Masters Cap Limit	20000
Last Counted	17th December 2010

H1B FY 2012 Would Require Online Preregistration of Employers to File H-1B Cap Petitions

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved a proposed rule that would require employers to pre-register with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) before filing an H-1B cap petition. Details of the proposed rule are confidential and will not be disclosed until the proposed rule is published for public comment in the Federal Register. Pre-registration would not be implemented until an interim or final version of the regulation is approved by OMB and published. Though no implementation date has been specified, a pre-registration system could be in place in time for the Fiscal Year 2012 H-1B filing season, which begins April 1, 2011.

The purpose of the proposed system is to streamline the sometimes chaotic H-1B cap filing process. If the system is implemented, USCIS will ask employers to register online and wait until they are awarded an H-1B cap number in the annual lottery before submitting a full petition with supporting documentation. The agency anticipates that it will eventually use a pre-registration system for other classifications that are subject to annual caps, like the H-2B.

The pre-registration system has been in the OMB approval process since September, when USCIS’s draft proposed rule was first sent for government review. In October, the agency also sought approval of a proposed online pre-registration form that employers would use to apply for an H-1B cap number.

More details from OH Law Firm

• Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to Numerical Limitations: DHS is proposing to amend its regulations governing petitions filed on behalf of alien workers subject to annual numerical limitations. This rule proposes an electronic registration program for petitions subject to numerical limitations contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). Initially, the program would be for the H-1B nonimmigrant classification; however, other nonimmigrant classifications will be added as needed. This action is necessary because the demand for H-1B specialty occupation workers by U.S. companies generally exceeds the numerical limitation. This rule is intended to allow USCIS to more efficiently manage the intake and lottery process for these H-1B petitions.

• Statement of Need: USCIS proposes to establish a mandatory Internet-based electronic registration process for U.S. employers seeking to file H-1B petitions for alien workers subject to either the 65,000 or 20,000 caps. This registration process would allow U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of available H-1B cap numbers. The mandatory proposed registration process will alleviate administrative burdens on USCIS service centers and eliminate the need for U.S. employers to needlessly prepare and file H-1B petitions without any certainty that an H-1B cap number will ultimately be allocated to the beneficiary named on the petition. To ensure a fair and orderly distribution of H-1B cap numbers, USCIS evaluated its current random selection process, and has found that when it receives a significant number of H-1B petitions within the first few days of the H-1B filing period, it is extremely difficult to handle the volume of petitions received in advance of the H-1B random selection process. Further, the current petition process of preparing and mailing H-1B petitions, with the required filing fee, can be burdensome and costly for employers, if the petition is returned because the cap was reached and the petition was not selected in the random selection process. Accordingly, this rule proposes to implement a new process to allow U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of available H-1B cap numbers without having to first prepare and submit the petition.

• Anticipated Costs and Benefits: USCIS estimates that this rule will result in a net benefit to society. Currently, employers submit a petition, at great expense, without any certainty that an H-1B cap number will ultimately be allocated to the beneficiary named on the petition. The new mandatory, Internet-based registration system allows employers to complete a much shorter and less expensive registration process for consideration of available H-1B cap numbers. The new system will also relieve a significant administrative burden and expense from USCIS. This rule will reduce costs for some employers and increase them for others. For employers that are not allocated a cap number and therefore do not ultimately file a petition, there will be a significant cost savings. Employers that are allocated a cap number and ultimately file a petition will experience the new and additional cost of filing the registration. Additionally, USCIS will incur additional costs to implement and maintain the registration system. USCIS has weighed the benefits and costs associated with this rule and determined that the benefits to society outweigh the costs.

• Risks: There is a risk that a petitioner will submit multiple petitions for the same H-1B beneficiary so that the U.S. employer will have a better chance of his or her petition being selected. Accordingly, should USCIS receive multiple petitions for the same H-1B beneficiary by the same petitioner, the system will only accept the first petition and reject the duplicate petitions

Stay tune to this website for more upcoming details.

H1B FY 2011 Cap Count - April 15, 2010

USCIS has received approximately 13,600 H-1B petitions counting toward the 65,000 cap. The agency has received approximately 5,800 petitions for individuals with advanced degrees until April 15th, 2009..

RENEGING REFORM - Have President Obama's immigration reform promises faded from mind? - By Martin Desmarais

A year ago spirits in the immigration law industry were flying high as many anticipated newly elected President Barack Obama would deliver on his campaign promise of comprehensive immigration reform. However, that optimism has swung deeply south as many now feel comprehensive immigration reform is as far off as it has ever been.

“Obama made a lot of promises to a lot of different groups, but the reality on the ground is bit different,” said Charles H. Kuck, managing partner of the Atlanta-based immigration law firm Kuck Casablanca LLC and immediate past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “He should be pushing immigration reform along … regardless of the economy, regardless if his health care passes.”

Kuck does not doubt President Obama’s interest in immigration reform. However, he is not satisfied with the tactic of relying on Congress to put forth legislation on the matter. Kuck believes that, due to the hot button nature of immigration reform, this is not something that America’s legislators have an interest in doing. He stressed that President Obama needs to put Congress’ “feet to the fire” or they will not act.

And now, with elections looming for legislators, Kuck does not anticipate any movement on comprehensive immigration reform. “On the ground the feeling is the chance of immigration reform are slim,” he said.

According to him, the immigration situation has reverted back to what it was when former President George H.W. Bush was in office, which is disheartening sentiment for many of the immigration reform supporters who welcomed the onset of President Obama administration.

“It puts us in an immigration malaise,” Kuck said. “It puts us trying to protect the same laws we have been trying to protect for 20 years.”

Kuck believes that some immigration reform may come piecemeal piggybacked on other legislation, but he has put his hopes of comprehensive immigration reform aside for the moment.

He also pointed out that Obama’s administration has actually been tougher on immigration than Bush’s ever was, with aggressive audits of immigration workers and a recent memo from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which has made it even harder to obtain H1-B visas due to the bureau’s new stricter interpretation of H1-B definitions.

Kuck

“The practice of immigration law has become that much harder,” Kuck said. “Sure clients are turning to us but we have less and less of the answers … It is just that much more difficult to obtain the status they want.

“Right now is a difficult time. Usually there is a rush to get H1-Bs, but there is no rush right now. There are no H1-Bs,” he added. “They are not going to hit the cap for many years.”

Sheela Murthy, head of Owing Mills, Md.-based, immigration-focused, Murthy Law Firm, had less optimism than most about the reality of immigration reform happening in 2009, so she is less surprised that the tide seemed to have turned, but this does not make things any easier to swallow from her perspective.

“I think it has been shoveled aside because there are bigger problems [such as health care, war and the economy],” Murthy said. “It is frustrating because you keep hoping something will happen for people who have spent their life working [on immigration].

Regardless, she stressed that immigration reform cannot be continually swept under the rug. “There are no simple solutions for any of this, but it all makes perfect sense that we need to do something about this. There is a problem,” she said. “There seems to be a huge systematic overhaul problem that we are dealing with.”

Like Kuck, Murthy sees an impact on the way her immigration law firm does business.

“Yes, the climate has changed. Things have become more difficult,” she said.

Murthy is particularly dissatisfied about the USCIS memo that has made it harder to get H1-Bs and she feels that the bureau has out stepped its legal bounds through the document. Her law firm is prepared to sue the government over the memo and has drafted a 28-page brief for a lawsuit and also sent a letter to the USCIS.

“We are challenging the government and telling them to revisit it,” Murthy said. She expects to get a response to her letter and will proceed forward depending on the response.

Though she feels confident that her firm has a case in regards to USCIS attempting to increase H1-B restrictions without going through the proper legislative channels to do so, she does admit concerns that moving forward with a lawsuit may be difficult because companies do not want to come forward and be part of it, choosing instead to try and work around the USCIS’ increased stringency.

Sheela Murthy

“Everyone is afraid of repercussions,” Murthy said. “The problem is I don’t want to threaten a lawsuit if people are not going to help me sue.”

At the end of the day, she feels the increased immigration scrutiny is increasingly coming down on immigration lawyers, who have to work harder and harder to get the results clients are looking for.

Scott Cooper, managing partner for the Michigan office of immigration law firm Fragomen, Del Rey Bernsen & Loewy PLLC, sees less and less of the results clients want happening – especially in regards to the different visa categories.

“[The documentation process for most visa categories] is very burdensome on the employer and it is very discouraging,” Cooper said.

Fragomen, Del Rey Bernsen & Loewy, which was started in New York, has more than 1,000 immigration professionals in over 30 offices in 14 countries and Cooper said the United States is increasingly becoming one of the most difficult places for immigrants to come and start businesses. “We are trying to shoehorn these people who want to create small- and medium-sized businesses into one category or another and the government is fighting us tooth-and-nail.”

He believes the more difficult the United States makes it to transfer in skilled personal the more companies will look outside the country for options. “It is almost like the government is trying to offshore jobs,” Cooper said. “And it is very counterproductive.”

When asked what he thinks it will take for immigration reform to happen, Cooper admits the belief that there is very little that good trigger any movement on the topic currently. “We are just too close to an election for an immigration bill. It is just too hot of a topic,” he said.

Beyond that he is not too optimistic. “They are trying to get health care done and it is a question of who is up next,” Cooper added. “I am not very encouraged.”

Immigration attorney Hanishi Ali, a founding partner at Westborough, Mass.-based Mithras Law Group, takes heart in the fact that President Obama continues to publicly say he is still supporting immigration reform.

“It is promising to hear that Pres. Obama still supports comprehensive immigration reform,” Ali said. “At least he hasn’t forgotten, but clearly we are going to deal with health care and the economy first.”

Still, like most of her immigration colleagues, she is insistent that comprehensive immigration reform must happen and that is the message that must be sent to the nation’s lawmakers. “We have to make legislators understand the pros and cons of this and really there aren’t that many cons.”.

The Employment Based Green Card Process And The Dramatic Negative Impact Of Country Based Quotas On Persons of Indian and China Origin

United States immigration laws are preventing many of the most talented immigrants in the world from migrating to the United States. On January 10, 2010, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released new data confirming that some prospective highly skilled immigrants from one country – India – may have to wait as much as 35 years to get a green card, unless Congress takes steps to change the current nationality based visa quota system and increases the annual quota.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 140,0001 employment based immigrants, inclusive of spouses and children, may migrate to this country annually in one of five general categories.

First Preference Employment Based Immigrants (EB‐1) : This category is for Priority Workers and is limited to 40,000 visas each year (28.6% of the worldwide employment‐based preference level). Any unused visa numbers from the EB‐4 and EB‐5 categories may be added to this quota. 15, 184 workers and 21,494 spouses and children immigrated under this category in FY 2008, which is the latest available detailed data.

Second Preference Employment Based Immigrants (EB‐2): This category is for workers in professions holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability. The number of visas available annually in this category are 40,000 (28.6% of the worldwide employment‐based preference level), plus any visas that are not used in the EB‐1 category. 34,535 workers and 35,511 spouses and children immigrated under this category in FY 2008.

Third Preference Employment Based Immigrants (EB‐3): This category is for skilled workers, professionals, and lesser skilled workers referred to as "other workers: The annual limit for workers in this category is 40,000 (28.6% of the worldwide employment‐based preference level), plus any visas that are not used in the EB‐2 category for that year. However, no more than 10,000 visas can be allocated to the lesser skilled "other workers" in this category. 20,596 workers and 28,303 spouses and children immigrated under this category in FY 2008.

Fourth Preference Employment Based Immigrants (EB‐4): This category is for certain special immigrants such as religious workers, certain long‐time employees of the U.S. government, citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan that have worked for the U.S. Armed Forces as a translator for at least 1 year, some physicians who have residence in the U.S. for a number of years, juvenile dependents of a court who are eligible for foster care, some dependents of diplomats and others . It is limited to a maximum of 10,000 visas per year (7.1% of the worldwide employment‐based preference level). 5,164 workers and 4,346 spouses and children immigrated under this category in FY 2008.

Fifth Preference Employment Based Immigrants (EB‐5): This category is for investor immigrants who create employment . It is limited to a maximum of 10,000 visas each year (7.1% of the worldwide employment‐based preference level). 427 workers and 922 spouses and children immigrated under this category in FY 2008.

The employment based categories are further restricted by country of nationality, and no more than 7 percent of each category can be allocated to any single nationality. Thus, no more than 2800 visas may be initially allocated to a single nationality group in each of the first three categories. Similarly, no more than 700 visas in each of the last two categories may be awarded to nationals of any single country.

This seemingly arbitrary across‐the‐board limitation has proven disproportionately disadvantageous to visa applicants from more densely populated countries. For example, under this formula, the maximum number of visas allotted to nationals of China and India, each with a population of over one billion citizens – is the same as that for nationals from smaller states such as Nauru with a population of 10,000 or even the Vatican, which has a population of only 800 citizens.

In recent years, there have been times when the total number of available visas in a particular category have not been entirely allocated. When this happens, these unused visas become available to oversubscribed countries such as India and China. The complex numerical allocation system cannot be fully explained here. The Department of State has a detailed explanation of this process at its website http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of.pdf . In 2000, Congress passed legislation which allowed the use of approximately 130,000 unused visas from the 1999 and 2000 fiscal years to be used in future years when the 140,000 annual limit was reached. This allowed additional visas to be issued in the EB‐2 and EB‐3 categories. The following chart shows the number of immigrant visas (green cards) allocated worldwide on an annual basis as well as the immigrant visas issued to Indian and Chinese nationals in the two categories that are oversubscribed – EB‐2 and EB‐3:

For the past seven years, in my role as the nation's first Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and subsequently as an immigration attorney in private practice, I have requested from USCIS the data on the total number of pending employment‐based cases by category, priority date, and country of chargeability. Common sense dictates that USCIS would maintain and monitor such statistics in the course of performing its core immigration functions. Without this data, USCIS would appear to be violating the very basis of the law that established the numerical limits on employment‐based immigrant visas. The responses to my queries have been disheartening at best.

In August 2009 USCIS released a report that, for the first time, publicly revealed some of this important data that I had been requesting since 2003. On January 10, 2010, USCIS released an updated version of the data. USCIS has acknowledged that it has not included all the data since its systems do not allow it to do so. The data excluded some pending cases for which visa petitions had not been approved, even though USCIS accepted the I‐485 applications concurrently. USCIS also excluded applications pending at field offices, which are apparently on a different database system, and excluded the pending cases with the Department of State's National Visa Center (NVC).

DOS recently released data on pending cases at the NVC. The combined data paint a bleak picture for EB‐2 and EB‐3 applicants. However, for Indian and Chinese nationals, the news is even worse.

The following chart shows total combined pending number of employment based visa applications pending at the two USCIS Service Centers based on the Jan 10, 2010 report as well as the number of employment based visa applications pending at the Department of State's National Visa Center:

As pointed out earlier, Table 2 reflects the estimated total number of pending applications for employment based immigrant visas based on the available data. USCIS has always insisted that the data from the two service centers reflects most of the applicants. However, in a strange twist of events, on January 28, 2010, the Department of State provided the author with data on visa requests from various USCIS offices including the two service centers. The data reveals that during the first four months of the fiscal year, USCIS service centers requested 4,200 employment based immigrant visas while district (field) offices requested 8,400 employment based immigrant visas. This suggests that field offices may have many more pending cases than USCIS has previously represented. If USCIS has a large number of employment based immigrant visa applications pending at the field offices, as indicated by the visa requests from field offices in the first four months of this fiscal year, the ominous predictions for the estimated number of years to process the EB‐2 and EB‐3 cases for India and China could rise dramatically.

On February 3, 2010, the Department of State released the current pool of visa applicants and documentarily qualified applicants for whom USCIS has already requested a visa number. The following charts, Tables 3 & 4, replicate the charts published by DOS and confirm the information provided above. It should be noted that this set of numbers includes all visa applicants waiting abroad and registered with the NVC and also includes a portion of the current pending applicants at USCIS Service Centers shown in Table 2 and some additional USCIS pending applicants at USCIS field offices. Unfortunately, neither USCIS nor DOS have been able to reconcile and account for the numbers reported by USCIS into the DOS database. For applicants, their lawyers, researchers and anyone else reviewing the data, including Congress, this situation presents an environment where there is no ability to hold the government agencies accountable for their actions or inactions in this area since data can be manipulated without regard to legislative requirements:

The data in Table 3 and Table 4 is used to set the monthly visa priority dates which is the official process by which the visa quotas are allocated. The monthly Visa Bulletin and a more complete explanation of the Visa Bulletin can be accessed at http://www.state.gov/ .

Solution
The immediate solution is full accountability of all pending applicants for employment based immigrant visas both at USCIS and DOS. Without accurate data, it is difficult to hold the agencies accountable for their actions or inactions.

Another solution is to "recapture" lost visas. Between 1994 and 2006, USCIS underutilized the visa numbers by approving less than the 140,000 employment based applications each year even though USCIS had more than enough applications pending. Due to the statutory calculation method (explained more fully by USCIS and DOS on their websites), USCIS's failure to timely process a sufficient number of applications resulted in the loss of approximately 349,000 visa numbers that could not be used in future years since the law prevents usage in future years. In 2000, Congress authorized the use of 130,000 these "lost" visa numbers by what has come to be known as the "visa recapture" method. However, approximately 219,000 numbers have not been "recaptured". The current worldwide pending cases in all employment based categories is approximately 340,000 applicants. A one‐time recapture of the 219,000 unused visa numbers could go a long way to eliminating this backlog and bringing much needed relief to many applicants who currently face the prospect of becoming residents of the United States after they retire.

The most important solution is resolving the nationality based discrimination built into our immigration laws, especially with regards to attracting the "best and the brightest" talent regardless of nationality. Congress must act now to end this nationality‐based discrimination against would‐be immigrants. Stakeholders in this issue — including U.S. employers in need of highly skilled workers— should let their lawmakers know in this election year that such discrimination is no longer tolerable. It is time to remove this blemish from our immigration system.

It is imperative that lawmakers review these ominous statistics. Congress needs to take action to remedy this problem. The problem was caused in part by inefficiencies and lack of accountability at USCIS and its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); in part by the failure of two agencies, USCIS and DOS to cooperate and share data; and, in part by the national origin based discriminatory statute, which is having an unintended effect of preventing tens of thousands of the most talented individuals from equally competing for visas that should be given to those that this country most needs rather than by discriminating based on national origin.

- By Prakash Khatri

Fakhoury Law Group

Prakash Khatri has a national Immigration Law practice based out of Washington, DC. He has been practicing law for more than 25 years. He is a nationally recognized expert on Immigration law and process. He is also the President and CEO of KPK Global Solutions, LLC, a consulting firm specializing in strategic-level immigration issues and is "of Counsel" to the Fakhoury Law Group.

H1B FY 2011 Cap Count - April 09, 2010

USCIS Continues to Accept FY 2011 H-1B Petitions

WASHINGTON - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced it continues to accept H-1B nonimmigrant petitions subject to the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 2011) cap. USCIS will monitor the number of petitions received for both the 65,000 general cap and the 20,000 U.S. master’s degree or higher educational exemption.

USCIS has received approximately 13,500 H-1B petitions counting toward the 65,000 cap. The agency has received approximately 5,600 petitions for individuals with advanced degrees.

USCIS will provide regular updates on the processing of FY 2011 H-1B petitions. These updates and helpful filing information can be found at USCIS’ Web site. Should USCIS receive the necessary number of petitions to meet the cap, it will issue an update to advise the public, that the FY 2011 H-1B cap has been met as of a certain date (the “final receipt date”). The final receipt date will be based on the date USCIS physically receives the petition, not the date that the petition has been postmarked. The date USCIS informs the public that the cap has been reached may differ from the actual final receipt date.

To ensure a fair system, USCIS may randomly select the number of petitions required to reach the numerical limit from the petitions received on the final receipt date. USCIS will reject cap subject petitions that are not selected, as well as those received after the final receipt date.

For cases filed for premium processing during the initial five-day filing window of April 1-7, the 15-day premium processing period began April 7. For cases filed for premium processing after the filing window, the premium processing period begins on the date that the petition is physically received at the correct USCIS Service Center.

Petitions filed by employers who are exempt from the cap or petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap within the past six years will not count toward the congressionally mandated H-1B cap.

Therefore, USCIS will continue to process all petitions filed. For more information on USCIS and its programs, visit www.uscis.gov.

H-1B in General: U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in fields, such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.

Nobel prizes remind us why immigration matters - By Chris O'Brien

By Chris O'Brien

If you're looking for reasons to puff out your chest and take pride in being American, then take note that the first six Nobel Prize winners announced this week are U.S. citizens. Here's something else you should know: Four of those winners were born outside the U.S.

That dynamic neatly summarizes the current state of our innovation economy. We are increasingly dependent on brainpower from overseas that migrates here to drive the research and discoveries we need to power economic growth.

Silicon Valley has been a bigger beneficiary of this influx of brains and talent than perhaps any other region in the U.S. And that means we have more to lose when the debate about immigration turns to demagoguery.

However you feel about the H-1B visas that our tech companies hunger for, or the swarms of bodies crossing our borders to pick our crops, these hot-button topics obscure the reality: We need these immigrants to renew our economy and to prosper. Our demonization of them is shameful.

Instead, we should celebrate the presence of people like Elizabeth Blackburn, professor at the University of California-San Francisco. Blackburn was born in Australia and moved to the U.S. in 1975. On Monday, she and two other researchers learned they would receive the Nobel Prize for medicine and split the $1.4 million it brings.

That money should more than make up for the 5 percent pay cut and furlough Blackburn (and most other University of California employees) received courtesy of the sad, sickly state of California. I wonder how many other Nobel winners took pay cuts just before receiving the award?

When Blackburn came here in the 1970s, it was clear that the U.S. was the undisputed center of the universe when it came to research. But that advantage is slipping away, as Blackburn noted that she sees exciting work being done in many other regions. Given the growing options for new researchers, erecting barriers to them coming to and staying in the U.S. seems ill-advised.

"I'm a big proponent that the flow of intellectual ideas is crucial," Blackburn said. "To have borders for it seems counterproductive."

Such walls hurt our country and our economy far in excess of whatever benefits they produce. We need to recognize the enormous contributions immigrants are making to the innovation economy.

According to statistics from the National Science Foundation released in February, foreign-born science and engineering students in 2003 earned one-third of all Ph.D.s awarded in the U.S. And the study noted that "those who do decide to finish advanced study in the United States overwhelmingly choose to stay in the country after earning their advanced degrees."

Thank goodness. In addition to Blackburn, the other foreign-born Nobel winners over the past two days included:

• Charles Kao, who was born in Shanghai, and has both U.K. and U.S. citizenship.
• William Boyle, of Bell Laboratories, was born in Nova Scotia and holds dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship.
• Jack Szostak, of Harvard Medical School, was born in London, grew up in Canada and is now a U.S. citizen.

We should be particularly proud that these people did not go to Russia or Germany, but came here. Our nation remains as dependent today as on the day of its founding on the ideas and imagination brought by fresh waves of newcomers arriving on our shores.

How strange that a nation founded by immigrants so easily forgets their value.

Bill Introduced in House to Eliminate Diversity Immigration Visa and Allocate the Numbers to EB based category for individuals with Advanced Degree

A bill has been introduced in House to eliminate Diversity Immigration Visa , referred as DV lottery, and allocate the numbers to EB based category for individuals with Advanced Degree. This bill is much wanted step to overhaul employment based immigration. Professional who have obtained advanced degree in US Universities, and are stuck in limbo due to numbers unavailable will benefit from this bill. To qualify for these numbers individuals should be employed in a profession related to science and mathematics that requires advanced degree, and should be working in US since they graduated.

Details of the Bill

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity immigrant program and to re-allocate those visas to certain employment-based immigrants who obtain an advanced... (Introduced in House)

HR 3687 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3687

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity immigrant program and to re-allocate those visas to certain employment-based immigrants who obtain an advanced degree in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 1, 2009

Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity immigrant program and to re-allocate those visas to certain employment-based immigrants who obtain an advanced degree in the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants- Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by inserting `and' at the end of paragraph (1);

(B) by striking `; and' at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting a period; and

(C) by striking paragraph (3); and

(2) by striking subsection (e).

(b) Allocation of Diversity Immigrant Visas- Section 203 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (c);

(2) in subsection (d), by striking `(a), (b), or (c),' and inserting `(a) or (b),';

(3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);

(4) in subsection (f), by striking `(a), (b), or (c)' and inserting `(a) or (b)'; and

(5) in subsection (g), by striking `(a), (b), and (c)' and inserting `(a) and (b)'.

(c) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status- Section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and

(2) in subsection (e), by striking `(a), (b), or (c)' and inserting `(a) or (b)'.

SEC. 2. VISAS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS WHO OBTAIN AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General- Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(D) CERTAIN ALIENS OBTAINING ADVANCED DEGREES IN THE UNITED STATES- Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 55,000, to qualified immigrants who--

`(i) are a member of a profession holding an advanced degree obtained within the United States;

`(ii)(I) obtained such degree within the United States during the 5-year period preceding the date on which the petition filed under section 204(a)(1)(F) for classification under this subparagraph is filed; or

`(II) has resided continuously in the United States in a lawful nonimmigrant status since obtaining such degree; and

`(iii) whose services in the sciences or medicine--

`(I) are sought by an employer in the United States; and

`(II) will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy of the United States.'.

(b) Numerical Limitation-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(3) Aliens described in section 203(b)(2)(D) may be issued visas or may otherwise acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in a number not to exceed 55,000 in any fiscal year.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 201(a)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(a)(2)) is amended by striking `and not to exceed' and inserting `and, excluding immigrants described in section 203(b)(2)(D), not to exceed'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2009.

H1B FY 2010 Cap Count - September 25, 2009 - 46,700

As of September 25, 2009, approximately 46,700 H-1B cap-subject petitions and approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

Senator Grassley's letter to Director of USCIS to ensure accountability in H-1B visa program

WASHINGTON – One year after an internal assessment showed extensive fraud and abuse in the H-1B visa program, Senator Chuck Grassley today is asking U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to hold employers accountable by requesting evidence from petitioners that H-1B visa holders actually have a job waiting for them in the United States.


In his letter to the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas, Grassley cited an Iowa company that was recently indicted for not having jobs available for the H-1B workers they petitioned for, and placing them in non-pay status upon arrival in the United States. Grassley also noted that the business allegedly submitted Labor Condition Applications with the U.S. Department of Labor that stated prevailing wage data for a location in Iowa rather than the higher prevailing wage for the location outside Iowa where the worker would actually be employed.


“The United States is in need of an immigration overhaul. Porous borders, shoddy workplace enforcement, and fraud-heavy guest worker programs all contribute to our illegal immigration problems. We don’t need a long, arduous legislative process to get at some of the problems. The agency can take immediate steps to eliminate fraud in the H-1B program, including cracking down on body shops that do not comply with the intent of the law. Employers need to be held accountable so that foreign workers are not flooding the market, depressing wages, and taking jobs from qualified Americans,” Grassley said. “Asking the right questions and requesting the necessary documents will go a long way in getting out the fraud in the H-1B program.”


Grassley also asked for an update on the steps being taken U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to alleviate other problems found in the 2008 benefits fraud and compliance assessment. The internal report found that more than 20 percent of petitions reviewed were based on fraud. Grassley has proposed several legislative changes to the program, but says this is something that can be done administratively to get at the fraud perpetrated by employers.


Here is a copy of the text of the letter to Mayorkas.


September 29, 2009


The Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas
Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.


Dear Director Mayorkas:


It’s been one year since U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released its benefits fraud and compliance assessment of the H-1B Non-immigrant Visa Program. This report evaluated the integrity of the H-1B visa program by reviewing a sample of petitions and by taking a comprehensive look at all aspects of the petition process. Unfortunately, the assessment showed that 20.7% of visa cases reviewed were identified as having outright fraud or other program violations associated with them.


Upon release of the benefits fraud assessment, I wrote to Acting Director Jonathan Scharfen to ask what steps USCIS had taken or would take to restore integrity in the program. Acting Director Scharfen reported to me that the agency had issued internal field guidance informing adjudicators of the findings and instructing them to make changes to how they adjudicate H-1B petitions.


While I appreciate the steps taken to alert USCIS Service Center adjudicators about the report and fraud indicators to be watchful for, I am surprised that no guidance has been provided to adjudicators, or to the public, about additional evidence to be gathered from petitioners. Adjudicators were told to “seek to resolve any and all issues through a Request for Evidence” but the guidance did not specify the evidence that should be requested of applicants. One of the changes that USCIS was considering, per Acting Director Scharfen, was clarifying what documentation must be submitted when the alien will be assigned by the H-1B petitioner to a third-party worksite.


We have seen substantial fraud and program violations by employers who bring in H-1B visa holders and then outsource them to other worksites. Such was the case with the indictment of Vision Systems Group, Inc. earlier this year in my home state. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement alleges that the company did not have jobs available for the H-1B workers they petitioned for, and placed them in non-pay status upon arrival in the United States. Additionally, Vision Systems allegedly submitted Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that stated prevailing wage data for a location in Iowa rather than the higher prevailing wage for the location outside Iowa where the worker would actually be employed.


I seek your commitment to tackle this problem immediately. Simply put, adjudicators should be asking companies up front for evidence that H-1B visa holders actually have a job awaiting them in the U.S., i.e. that workers are not coming in only to be “benched” by employers and that the job the workers are filling is the same job and in the same location as the lob/location described in the LCA approved by DOL. I strongly encourage USCIS to request from petitioners that have stated they will be assigning H-1B workers to third-party worksites copies of relevant portions of any and all contracts or agreements between the petitioning company and the third-party worksites that prove the foreign workers will actually have work upon arrival and that the work will in fact be performed at the places described in the approved LCA and in the itinerary submitted with the petition. This evidentiary requirement should be instituted immediately so that USCIS can ensure that H-1B workers are filling true vacancies rather than taking jobs from qualified Americans.


Acting Director Scharfen also noted that the agency was considering other anti-fraud initiatives, including: changing the I-29 petition form; clarifying when a petitioner must file an amended H-1B petition based on a material change in employment; modifying the H-1B evidentiary requirements; prohibiting a petitioner from passing any fee associated with an H-1B petition to the beneficiary; and prohibiting subsequent filings by those who previously were found to have committed fraud in an attempt gain an immigration benefit. I would like an update on these efforts that were being considered by USCIS, including detailed explanations as to why any of them have been shelved or not implemented in the last year.


Acting Director Scharfen also reported that USCIS would “soon begin using independent, open source data available through commercial sources to obtain information regarding the petitioner that would be relevant to the adjudication of the petition.” Has any action on this “independent documentation” effort taken place? Do you, as the new Director, believe that such an initiative is worthwhile, efficient, and necessary?


In addition to the above-mentioned issues, I would like to know what other steps you are taking to alleviate the problems found in the 2008 benefits fraud assessment, including the following:


• Employees are working at locations not identified in the petition and/or Labor Condition Application (LCA);
• Actual job duties differing from those described in the LCA and petition;
• Failure to pay prevailing wage or required the beneficiary to pay some or all of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 fees;
• Use of fraudulent or forged documents or signatures; and
• Aliens misrepresenting they were maintaining status when returning to the U.S. even though they previously had failed to maintain H-1B status.



Fraud in the H-1B visa program only hurts companies that play by the rules and truly need highly skilled workers. For this reason, it’s vitally important that your agency take all steps necessary to eliminate abuse and take action against those who do not comply with the law.


When we met prior to your confirmation hearing, you committed to rooting out fraud and abuse in all visa programs, but specifically the H-1B visa program. Upon being confirmed, you also answered several questions for the record, including ones that I submitted about the H-1B visa program. You said, “I believe the existence of fraud in the H-1B visa program needs to be addressed forcefully.” Your statement complements that made by Secretary Napolitano herself in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last May: “From an enforcement standpoint, my priority is to make sure that there’s not fraud occurring within the H-1B program at all.” You also said you would promptly conduct a thorough review of USCIS programs to identify areas in need of improvement and in need of increased focus, and that you would develop a close working relationship with ICE to ensure that fraud and abuse are addressed through criminal prosecution.


I look forward to hearing about the thorough review that you promised to undertake as soon as you were confirmed. I appreciate your consideration of the issues I have raised, and await your speedy response to this letter.


Sincerely,




Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

H1B FY 2010 Cap Count - September 18, 2009 - 46,000

As of September 18, 2009, approximately 46,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions and approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

Questions & Answers: Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory

Questions & Answers: Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory

Q: Why is the wait so long for my employment-based green card?

A: A visa must be available before a person can obtain an employment-based green card. Because more people want a green card than there are visas available, not everyone who wants a green card can get one immediately. Therefore, some people have to wait in line until a visa is available. The U.S. Department of State (DOS) gives out 140,000 employment-based visas each year. About 85% of those visas go to people seeking a green card in the United States, while about 15% go to people seeking to immigrate from abroad. Currently, about 234,000 people have employment-based adjustment of status (green card) applications pending in the United States and are waiting to get a visa. How long you wait for a visa depends on the supply and demand for your particular preference category, your priority date, and the country your visa will be charged to, usually your country of birth.

Q: How can I determine my place in line based on my priority date?

A: Your preference category, priority date, and country of origin determine your place in line for a visa. The earlier your priority date is, the closer you are to the front of the line. To better assist you in knowing your place in line, we are posting a report of our total pending inventory of applications for employment-based green cards (Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) for those seeking to adjust status in the United States. See the “Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Report” link to the right. We are also posting five other reports by country of chargeability (China, India, Mexico, Philippines, and All Other Chargeability) (see the links to the right).

The “Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Report,” displays the total number of pending adjustment of status applications, per preference classification. The report shows how many pending adjustment of status (green card) applications in each preference classification have priority dates in a given month and year. You can use this chart to determine how many applicants in your preference classification have priority dates in the same month and year as your own. Also, you can determine how many applicants in your preference classification are ahead of you in line for a visa number by adding together the number of cases with an earlier priority date than your own.

The All Other Chargeability report shows how many applicants from countries other than China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines have priority dates in a given month and year. The report is broken down into separate charts for each preference classification. If you are from a country other than China, India, Mexico, or the Philippines, you can use this chart to determine how many applicants for adjustment of status in the same preference classification have a priority date in the same month and year as your own. This chart also lets you know how many applicants in the same preference classification have earlier priority dates.

Because of historically higher demand for visas from China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines, each of those countries has its own separate report. As published in the DOS Visa Bulletin, applicants from those countries will need to have earlier priority dates than like applicants from other countries to get a visa in any given month. If you are from China, India, Mexico, or the Philippines, you may want to use the report for your particular country. Your country report will show you how many applicants from the same country and preference classification have a priority date in the same month and year as your own. The report will also let you know how many applicants from the same country and preference classification have earlier priority dates.

Q: Which report should I use, the Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Report or the country-specific reports?

A: All applicants for an employment-based green card may use the pending Form I-485 report to determine their place in line for a visa. Because certain countries experience higher demand than others, applicants in these “oversubscribed” countries may move forward in line more slowly than applicants in countries experiencing less demand. In other words, in order to obtain a visa, applicants in oversubscribed countries may need to have earlier priority dates than applicants in countries experiencing less demand. Applicants in oversubscribed countries may therefore want to also refer to the report for their specific country of chargeability to determine where they stand in line with other applicants from that country.

Q: What information do I need to have before using the pending Form I-485 inventory reports?

A: You need to know your priority date and your preference category to use the pending Form I-485 inventory reports. For more information on priority dates and preference categories, see the “Visa Availability & Priority Dates” and “Green Card Eligibility” links to the right.

Q: How do I read the pending I-485 inventory reports?

A: First, click on the link to the report you want to view. Once you click on the link, the report will appear and you will see a series of charts, one for each preference category. You will see that each chart has different numbers for each month and year. These numbers show how many green card applicants have priority dates in that month and year. To figure out how many applicants have earlier priority dates, add all the numbers from all the cells that correspond to earlier months.

Q: Can you tell me when I will get a visa?

A: Unfortunately, we cannot determine how long it will take for you to get a visa. However, we hope that by showing applicants with a pending Form I-485 where they stand in line to get a visa, you will get a better sense of how long it may take. We intend to update the data in these reports quarterly. By comparing newer versions of the reports with older ones, you may see that the number of applicants ahead of you has gotten smaller, and you may be able to tell how much shorter the line has become. We hope this will give you an even better sense of how long it may take for you to get a visa.

Reference

Case Status Inquiries with the Service Centers

WASHINGTON - U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued instructions on making inquiries with the agency's four Service Centers. Customers, community-based organizations and liaison groups should follow this guidance when inquiring about case related issues. This new process standardizes customer service and streamlines processing of customer inquiries at USCIS Service Centers. The step-by-step instructions are as follows:

Step 1: Contact the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-800-375-5283. The NCSC can assist customers, community-based organizations and liaison groups with case related inquiries. Before calling the NCSC please have available your receipt number, alien registration number, type of application filed and date filed. During your call we recommend that you take note of the following information:

-The name and/or id number of the NCSC representative

-The date and time of the call

-Any service request referral number, if a service referral on a pending case
is taken

Step 2: If more than 30 days have passed since you contacted the NCSC and the issue has not been resolved or explained you can email the proper USCIS Service Center to check the status of your case.

-California Service Center: csc-ncsc-followup@dhs.gov

-Vermont Service Center: vsc.ncscfollowup@dhs.gov

-Nebraska Service Center: ncscfollowup.nsc@dhs.gov

-Texas Service Center: tsc.ncscfollowup@dhs.gov

Please note: Emails should be sent to the Service Center that has jurisdiction over your case. The receipt notice will indicate EAC for the Vermont Service Center, SRC for the Texas Service Center, LIN for the Nebraska Service Center, and WAC for the California Service Center.

When contacting the Service Centers by email you will need to provide the information outlined in Step 1. If the NCSC did not issue a service request after your call, please indicate the reason the NCSC representative did not issue the request.

Step 3: In the event you do not receive a response within 21 days of contacting the appropriate Service Center, you may email the USCIS Headquarters Office of Service Center Operations by email at: SCOPSSCATA@dhs.gov. You will receive a response from this email address within ten days.

H1B FY 2010 Cap Count - August 28, 2009 - 45,100

As of August 28, 2009, approximately 45,100 H-1B cap-subject petitions and approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

H1B FY 2010 Cap Count - July 3, 2009 : 45,000

As of July 3, 2009, approximately 45,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions and approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

H1B FY 2010 Cap Count : June 29, 2009

As of June 26, 2009, approximately 44,800 H-1B cap-subject petitions and approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

Bill gives in-state tuition to foreign professionals, families in Washington on H1B visa

A little-noticed measure passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor will extend in-state tuition rates at Washington state colleges and universities to foreign professionals at companies such as Microsoft and Amazon, as well as to their children and spouses.

Under House Bill 1487, which takes effect July 1, the foreign workers would qualify for the same tuition rate as state residents if they have been in the state at least a year on certain kinds of temporary work visas, such as the H-1B.

The measure passed amid a roiling budget crisis and hundreds of millions of dollars in cutbacks to higher education. It was nicknamed the "Microsoft subsidy bill" by some lawmakers who say the software giant and its workers surely could afford to pay the higher tuition rates.

Subject to lively legislative debate, the bill received little attention outside the Capitol. An analysis put the immediate tuition revenue loss at the University of Washington at about $430,000, with potential for bigger losses in future years, and about $215,000 at Washington State University.

State Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, the bill's sponsor, retired from Microsoft in 2000 after 17 years. He said employers in his Eastside district sought the provision as a tool for recruiting foreign talent.

"There are a bunch of people in my district who are in this situation," said Hunter, who is running for King County executive.

The bill passed the House 59-38 and the Senate 31-13.

Lydia Tamez, associate general counsel and director of global migration at Microsoft, said it would allow Washington to attract and keep talented foreign professionals and to compete with about 13 other states, including Oregon, that already offer tuition breaks to foreign workers.

Microsoft has thousands of workers who may qualify.

The company said spouses of the visa holders often cannot work legally in the U.S., leaving the costs of college classes or pursuing a college degree to be borne on a single income.

"These are people who are here lawfully, and are going to be here for a long period of time," Tamez said. "It makes it affordable for workers who are your neighbors, pay taxes, buy homes and whose kids hang around with your kids to possibly earn a second degree at night."

A state resident who is a full-time undergraduate at UW will pay $7,677 in tuition and basic fees next year, compared with $24,352 for a full-time nonresident student. Read Full Article ...