suryacom

It is unfair because it doesn't allow someone to jump the line. A totally unfair system (sarcasm).

Because he is lying when he said the wait time is only 8-10 years. It is actually more than 100 years.

But, no immigration attorney will ever say that truth to the H1B visa holders from India. I had asked this exact same question to my company attorney 10 years ago and the answer was exact same, wait for 5-10 years.

There are around ~70k software engineer coming to US from India, and everyone of them is told the same lie by their attorneys.

While most of these folks from India wait for their green card for rest of their life, attorneys make a fortune renewing their H1B every year.

I see. So, will the "ebb and flow", bring down my wait time from 800 years to 300 years?

Current priority date for EB-3 India is 2006. For it to clear all the 2007 priority date applications, it will take another 14 years [1].

Since my priority date is today, 12/19/2017, why do you think my wait time is only between 8-10 years?

Or, did you mean 810 years?

[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigr...

How many years will I need to wait for my green card? I'm from India on H1B - EB3 and my priority date is today.

P.S. I know it is hard to give exact number, but even a ballpark estimate would be highly appreciated. Thank you

> Their politicians always like to pat themselves on the back and are trying to present Canadian situation as better than the US all the time.

Lol. This reminds me of their highly publicized welcoming of undocumented immigrants after Trump was elected. But, once that count crossed thousand, they just shut their border.

Here is the detailed comment by "Immigration Voice" on why the rule is bad for everyone except special interest:

"...The new immigrant entrepreneur parole program will create a yet another class of immigrants, albeit minority partners and working resources in the start-up entity, who will be beholden and entirely dependent on the hand-picked venture capital firms to maintain their status in United States in the parole period and beyond as immigrant entrepreneur will have no clear pathway to permanent residency. The proposed rule does not present a clear and fair system in which immigrants will have the same rights as U.S. workers or U.S. entrepreneurs in the marketplace. Therefore, the immigrant entrepreneur will have no leverage to negotiate the terms of the contract and relationship with and they will be susceptible to exploitation in a novel way as proposed in this regulation. Even if a path to U.S. permanent residency is proposed, it will in all likelihood, be at the expense of the current backlog of employment based immigrants in the permanent residency process.

In essence, the new immigrant would pay (in the form of hefty investment in the firm) for his or her travels to the United States only to remain in bondage relationship to the hand-picked VC firm. If this is not a definition of indentured servitude, then what is? Worse yet, the paroled immigrant has no defined wage requirement as a worker in the firm and has very lenient “income threshold” (400 percent of Federal Poverty Level for family size - irrespective of the prevailing wages of the entrepreneur’s job functions) as outlined in the proposed rule. It is well known that such system only increases the demand for new immigrants because of their lower leverage and bargaining power in such relationships, while the American workers and entrepreneurs are discriminated against in the talent ecosystem.

In justifying the rule, DHS presents “significant public benefit” such as entrepreneurship and job creation by immigrant founders. This reference to various studies is grossly misleading in that DHS uses contributions of immigrant founders without crediting the fact that most of these immigrant founders had gained sufficient certainty in their immigration process by obtaining a Green Card prior to making a significant investment in the companies they founded.

The H-1B and L-1B programs were also created under the pretext of “job creation and innovation in the United States” and 25 years after the inception of these programs, the American high-skilled workforce consists of an estimated 1.5 million high-skilled law-abiding immigrants who are captive to their employers and cannot start their businesses and create jobs. This is clearly detrimental to the prospects of our fellow American workers who compete against the captive workforce of skilled immigrants who are favored by bad employers for their lack of job mobility.

For the purpose of bringing in more immigrants from outside, DHS uses the disguise of “significant public benefit” only to pile up fresh immigrants in the Green Card backlogs in which the new immigrants have fewer rights (as will clearly be the case with the proposed class of Entrepreneur parolees). It is ironic that DHS did not use the same “significant public benefit” arguments for providing rights such as job mobility and ability to start their own companies by high skilled immigrants, who already have approved immigrant petitions (I-140), understand the business environment in US, have great ideas (and hold patents in many cases) and have investments to start their businesses. But somehow DHS and Administration is very selective in applying the same “significant public benefit” argument for NOT letting people with approved immigrant petitions to start their companies. This clearly raises doubts as to whether any economic argument by the DHS in the rule making process is trustworthy. The proposed regulation ensures that there will be absolutely zero “significant public benefit”. Instead, the proposed regulation is only designed for “significant benefit of hand-picked Venture Capitalists”...."

Complete comment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwdh5aYDQTwIbGVkR2Z6LV9FVTA...

Though this is not against the law; I don't know any real companies that does this.

I think an opposite analogy would fit better. Where the Tech companies playing "the cook with the lid"

Yeah, if I had said Bush made "the priority date current" so that H1B could file 485-EAD; I don't think anyone would understand what that mean.

So, I tried to keep it simple by mentioning "job mobility".

mavelikara's comment blow has the references to Bush's changes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13402891

80% of the H1B holders today are from India. And they cannot reach that step; because the wait time to reach there (485-EAD) is 70+ years.

That is the sense I got from the Legal Immigrant Advocacy groups who directly worked with DC Immigration Officials. There should be good companies and attorneys (for e.g., Murthy, etc.) probably they are out numbered?

P.S: I did provide the twitter handle of fwd.us for anyone not convinced to verify

They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration. So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.

I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally know more than few of family friends were benefited.

Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.

I have no idea. If Republican's tries to make the system better with the interest of American workers as priority, then there is a chance, it could help legal immigrants like me too.

With the current administration, their priority was totally upside down.

>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false.

That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.

I'm an H1-B visa holder living and working in USA for past 10+ years. I cannot express how much happier I'm to see the Tech industry being on the wrong side of the presidential election. The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.

Here is an example, where every year, tens of thousands of legal immigrant kids getting deported because legal immigrants followed all the laws. Instead if we had not, and our kids were in illegal status, then Obama administration's DACA would have saved our kids.

Just read the 1st two paragraph of this article: https://www.cato.org/blog/congress-should-help-young-legal-i...

[Note: there are tons of other examples I can provide, where it is more beneficial to claim to be an illegal vs trying to be legal status]

P.S. the fwd.us, a tech industry backed non-profit organization would never speak about our issues; but would bend over backward to prevent illegals from deported (check their twitter handle "FWD_us" if you don't believe). Btw- I have nothing against illegal immigrants; but it hurts to be disadvantaged after following every impossible immigration rules for past 10+ years.

>On one hand, you claim that it takes a year for the employer to get your GC going. And now to withdraw it (which will include the same filing fee + lawyer fees - time spent= thousands of dollars) it takes them less than a month (or few months) to budget this?

Why do you say withdrawal need to be done in a month? To pack-up an H1-B visa holder, withdrawal only has to be done within the 2.5 years.

Also, withdrawing I-140 is more about sending a message to the other H1-B employees to not leave. Companies are glad to cough up few hundred bucks to send that message.

>No, you can use your old I140 to extend your H1B for another 3 years

That is based on the _assumption_ the previous employer did not withdraw the old I-140. I wouldn't recommend that to any H1B visa holder.

I have crossed 6 years on H1B. So, if I change my job, maximum visa extension I can get is for 3 years (provided my employer was kind enough to give me a copy of the I-140 petition).

This is where it gets tricky. Within this 3 years I need to get a new PERM approved by the new employer. So, say I set aside 1 year for the new employer to get all the internal budgeting approvals and initiate my GC process. Then it takes at least another 6 months (no attorney's file PERM within 6 months these days) to file the PERM. And, then say another 1 year to get the PERM result. So, this will take me 2.5 years into my 3 years limit. Now, god forbid, if the PERM gets denied due to clerical error. There is not time left for another try. Pretty much pack-up and leave.

I think you are talking about is H1B-LCA document. I-140 petition is different, it is employer's property.

>This sounds like you are talking about consulting companies who hold their employees hostage

This thread is discussing a law -- that targets only consulting companies.

>No legitimate company can do that and you have legal recourse if they do.

That is not correct. There is nothing an H1B employee can do if his employer does not share the copy of I-140.

If you are on H1B past 6 years, then you will need the copy of approved I-140 petition to get the H1B transferred to the new employer. But, H1B visa holder does not have access to I-140 petition; it is employer's property.

You missed my point. It is not about poor countries. Indian's and Chinese will not have job mobility for decades. That is the reason, last year, 80%+ of H1B visas went to Indian/Chinese nationals.

What you mean by you are a risk taker? You have no idea what you are comparing here.

Will you risk your family getting deported due to a clerical error? Once H1B lose his job, he and his family has to leave the country in 15 days. Sell his house, pull kids out from school, etc. All this arises whenever H1B tries to change the job.

That is not correct. The second employer has to do all three: PERM, I-140 and GC.

Visa can be transferred. But, Green Card process has to be restarted from the square one; that is +10k for attorney.

If TCS/Infosys brings in H1B folks to replace American workers; and those H1B folks leave TCS/Infosys the next day; then that business model will not work to begin with.

On one talks about the actual issue with the H1B. I'm a H1B holder from India, living and working in USA for past 10 years. The actual incentive for companies is that, an H1B holder from India has less rights, they cannot change job or even travel freely outside USA (for decades). That gives the employers full control of the employee. Any guess why companies only recruit from India and China? Because, the country based wait time -- to become a US citizen -- is decades for these countries. So, consultancies will have no problem paying higher salary for someone from India or China.

Immigration Attorneys are making a fortune of this broken system; for e.g., every year my company has to pay attorney fee to renew my visa. Any time I change my job, green card process has to be restarted from square one..more cash to attorneys.

P.S. I remember when I first came here 10 years back I was told by the attorney to wait for 5 years to be a resident. Last year, in 2016, when I went to another attorney he too tells me to wait for another 5 years. So, they never tells the actual wait time is 50 to 70 years. Even the USCIS don't disclose the actual wait time. So, hundreds of thousands highs killed immigrants place all their bets based on the words of Immigration Attorney and get into a mess from where they find hard to get out.

[Edit]: In my opinion, a possible fix shall be to give H1B holder job mobility. I.e., if TCS/Infosys brings in H1B holders to replace American workers; and those H1B holders leave TCS/Infosys the next day; then that business model will not work to begin with.