Jump to content

140 Ead Ap E-Mail Campaign

acuman

By acuman
in Old Discussions

 Share

Recommended Posts

acuman Sr. Hero

acuman

Posted
Posted

Urgent Action: Comment on 'Same or similar job' Memo.

We have over 10,000 members, We need to flood with comments. Please remember this is only a portion of I140EADAP rule.

How could I help to make this happen? : Please email as described in the doc below, you are free to edit the comments as you see fit.

Email: [email protected]

Ask everyone in your home to send emails. 
Ask your friends and colleagues to send in emails 
Add your friends and family to this Facebook group

This is time critical, Deadline Jan 4, 2016.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acuman Sr. Hero

acuman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sub: Comments on Draft PM-602-0122

 

Dear USCIS Adjudication Committee,

 

The purpose of this email is to provide comments on the Draft Memo 602-0122 which was released on November 20, 2015. We represent a group of skilled immigrants waiting several years for our green cards simply because of the outdated per country limitations in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

We hereby request the following guidelines for officers adjudicating whether an occupation is in the “same or a similar occupational classification”:

 

  1. Let a Higher Salary Be the Arbiter for Changes Outside Occupations or Groups: Oftentimes, employees will progress to a managerial function that oversees several Broad Occupations, Minor Groups, and Major Groups. Some examples are:

    1. A Software Developer, Applications (15-1132) might be made a Chief Technology Officer at a startup. A CTO generally oversees all technical functions in a company including Computer Hardware Engineers (17-2061), as well as Computer and Mathematical Operations (15-0000). A CTO reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer of a company (11-1010) and is the second most important role in a technology company, yet an Occupational Group cannot even be found in the SOC. A CTO is clearly a much more senior role than a Software Developer and as such, would command a premium salary.

    2. A Product Marketing Manager (who would fall into the Marketing Manager category of 11-2021) might be promoted to Director of Product Marketing, which is a much more senior role. However, a SOC Group does not even exist for this type of job. For data, please look at http://hubpages.com/business/All-about-pharma-product-manager-jobs#PhotoSwipe1448781582641 which shows a diagram of career progression. We request that in cases where USCIS judges the foreign national to be performing a role that is significantly outside an Occupational Group, that the role be classified as “same or similar” if the salary of the foreign national is higher than his or her previous role for which an I-140 petition has been granted, since the foreign national has clearly demonstrated upward movement in their career

  2. Moving Between Different Occupations within a Major Group: The field of Information Technology is changing rapidly and tech workers need to move between different occupational categories to keep their skills current. For example:

    1. A new disruptive technology known as “Hadoop” is quickly taking root at several companies. In fact, a recent report shows that this technology will grow 25x by 2020, representing a $48.2 billion increase in revenues (http://www.datanami.com/2014/05/29/hadoop-market-grow-58-2020-report-says/). A Database Administrator (15-1141) working on relational databases who wants to work on Hadoop technology has complementary skills to do so, but would have to change their occupational category to Software Developer, Systems Software (15-1133). In this instance, the foreign national has not increased the seniority of his or her title, but has made a lateral move. We ask that such a lateral move be allowed by USCIS, even if the salary being offered is not significantly higher than the previous occupation’s salary, as long as the new occupation is still within a Major Group.

  3. Starting Businesses: Many foreign nationals desire to start their own businesses. In fact, data shows that over 40% of large US companies were started by either immigrants or the children of an immigrant (http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/04/25/40-largest-u-s-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/). The report also goes into further details and states that 75% of companies funded by an American venture capital firm had at least one core foreign-born member. When starting a tech company, it is important to keep costs under control. As a result, many founders of such companies take a huge pay cut when taking funding from a venture capital (VC) company in exchange for significant equity in the company, with the hope that when the company grows, that their stake could be worth millions of dollars. In this instance, the foreign national might not only be changing their Major Group, but also taking a pay cut. We ask that USCIS allow foreign nationals to start their own companies as long as there is proof of venture capital funding. In instances where the foreign national is not able to obtain any VC funding, he or she should still be allowed to operate the business as long as they hold a full-time job that pays them a higher salary than the role for which their I-140 was approved for.

  4. Irrevocability of the I-140: We ask that all beneficiaries of an approved I-140 whose priority date is not current be immediately given EADs. The I-140 should also be non-revocable except in cases of fraud. If the beneficiary has had no hand in committing the fraud and the fault lies with the petitioning employer, then the I-140 should remain irrevocable. The employer must also hand over the original I-140 and PERM to the beneficiary upon request, within 30 days.

  5. Employer bears all costs: The petitioning employer must be made to pay any and all costs of the green card process (including I-140, I-485, and medical and document costs for I-485), including the optional premium processing fees and the employee should not have to reimburse the employer for any part of the overall green card processing costs. The employer should not be allowed to recoup GC filing fee from employees in the form of liquidated damages or any other loopholes. (4) and (5) are especially important in ensuring that the foreign national is not blackmailed by unscrupulous employers.

 

We humbly submit the above comments to you and ask that you implement them in your guidance of “same or similar” going forward so that foreign nationals are only used to complement the American labor force instead of being used by employers to depress wages by exploiting loopholes in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

Sincerely,

 

[name]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ranam_007 Hero

ranam_007

Posted
Posted

Sub: Comments on Draft PM-602-0122

 

Dear USCIS Adjudication Committee,

 

The purpose of this email is to provide comments on the Draft Memo 602-0122 which was released on November 20, 2015. We represent a group of skilled immigrants waiting several years for our green cards simply because of the outdated per country limitations in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

We hereby request the following guidelines for officers adjudicating whether an occupation is in the “same or a similar occupational classification”:

 

  1. Let a Higher Salary Be the Arbiter for Changes Outside Occupations or Groups: Oftentimes, employees will progress to a managerial function that oversees several Broad Occupations, Minor Groups, and Major Groups. Some examples are:

    1. A Software Developer, Applications (15-1132) might be made a Chief Technology Officer at a startup. A CTO generally oversees all technical functions in a company including Computer Hardware Engineers (17-2061), as well as Computer and Mathematical Operations (15-0000). A CTO reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer of a company (11-1010) and is the second most important role in a technology company, yet an Occupational Group cannot even be found in the SOC. A CTO is clearly a much more senior role than a Software Developer and as such, would command a premium salary.

    2. A Product Marketing Manager (who would fall into the Marketing Manager category of 11-2021) might be promoted to Director of Product Marketing, which is a much more senior role. However, a SOC Group does not even exist for this type of job. For data, please look at http://hubpages.com/business/All-about-pharma-product-manager-jobs#PhotoSwipe1448781582641 which shows a diagram of career progression. We request that in cases where USCIS judges the foreign national to be performing a role that is significantly outside an Occupational Group, that the role be classified as “same or similar” if the salary of the foreign national is higher than his or her previous role for which an I-140 petition has been granted, since the foreign national has clearly demonstrated upward movement in their career

  2. Moving Between Different Occupations within a Major Group: The field of Information Technology is changing rapidly and tech workers need to move between different occupational categories to keep their skills current. For example:

    1. A new disruptive technology known as “Hadoop” is quickly taking root at several companies. In fact, a recent report shows that this technology will grow 25x by 2020, representing a $48.2 billion increase in revenues (http://www.datanami.com/2014/05/29/hadoop-market-grow-58-2020-report-says/). A Database Administrator (15-1141) working on relational databases who wants to work on Hadoop technology has complementary skills to do so, but would have to change their occupational category to Software Developer, Systems Software (15-1133). In this instance, the foreign national has not increased the seniority of his or her title, but has made a lateral move. We ask that such a lateral move be allowed by USCIS, even if the salary being offered is not significantly higher than the previous occupation’s salary, as long as the new occupation is still within a Major Group.

  3. Starting Businesses: Many foreign nationals desire to start their own businesses. In fact, data shows that over 40% of large US companies were started by either immigrants or the children of an immigrant (http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/04/25/40-largest-u-s-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/). The report also goes into further details and states that 75% of companies funded by an American venture capital firm had at least one core foreign-born member. When starting a tech company, it is important to keep costs under control. As a result, many founders of such companies take a huge pay cut when taking funding from a venture capital (VC) company in exchange for significant equity in the company, with the hope that when the company grows, that their stake could be worth millions of dollars. In this instance, the foreign national might not only be changing their Major Group, but also taking a pay cut. We ask that USCIS allow foreign nationals to start their own companies as long as there is proof of venture capital funding. In instances where the foreign national is not able to obtain any VC funding, he or she should still be allowed to operate the business as long as they hold a full-time job that pays them a higher salary than the role for which their I-140 was approved for.

  4. Irrevocability of the I-140: We ask that all beneficiaries of an approved I-140 whose priority date is not current be immediately given EADs. The I-140 should also be non-revocable except in cases of fraud. If the beneficiary has had no hand in committing the fraud and the fault lies with the petitioning employer, then the I-140 should remain irrevocable. The employer must also hand over the original I-140 and PERM to the beneficiary upon request, within 30 days.

  5. Employer bears all costs: The petitioning employer must be made to pay any and all costs of the green card process (including I-140, I-485, and medical and document costs for I-485), including the optional premium processing fees and the employee should not have to reimburse the employer for any part of the overall green card processing costs. The employer should not be allowed to recoup GC filing fee from employees in the form of liquidated damages or any other loopholes. (4) and (5) are especially important in ensuring that the foreign national is not blackmailed by unscrupulous employers.

 

We humbly submit the above comments to you and ask that you implement them in your guidance of “same or similar” going forward so that foreign nationals are only used to complement the American labor force instead of being used by employers to depress wages by exploiting loopholes in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

Sincerely,

 

[name]

 

URL plz, just want to see the original one

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...