There are only 65,000 visas given for regular H-1Bs and 20,000 for holders of US Master’s Degree. As of July 09, only 24,800 regular petitions were filed and 10,600 US Master’s petition were filed. The reason for this slow filing is two fold.

Heading into a deeper recession, the economy is definitely a factor. Unlike what most people think, Companies would rather hire US workers, and not pay the $2320/- filing fees plus attorney’s fees.

However there are some professions which have a shortage in the US. That is true of computer professionals. But the computer professional market has been bruised by a poorly conceived and legally impermissible memo that CIS promulgated on January 08, 2010. The CIS is their infinite wisdom deemed that professionals need to be “controlled” directly by the petitioning company.

The IT business typically have contracts that go through tiers— from the petitioning company to the end user. The CIS thinks that this creates “job shop” a four letter word to them.

The Jan 08 memo is startling in how unconstitutional it is—- how it totally disregards the rule of law. The class action lawsuit against it will hopefully see the end of the memo. Meanwhile software companies are outsourcing their business elsewhere.

However if there is a contract using an intermediary, control can be shown if another employee of the same H-1B employer works for the end user and actually supervises the H-1B beneficiary.

For instance if Company A, the H-1B employer has a contract with Company F and Company F has a contract with the end user, Company Bigshot. If Company A has employee X who works for Big Shot too, who supervises employee Y, who is the beneficiary, then control can be established under the January 08 memo. Of course all companies have to provide a ton of document to prove the case.

For more information contact Houston Immigration Lawyer or Houston Immigration Attorney, Annie Banerjee

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is not much different from the federal version. But according to Houston-area immigration lawyer Annie Banerjee, treating all 11 million of the nation’s illegal immigrants as criminals is not just overwhelming, it’s insane.

On its face, Arizona’s controversial new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, is “like two peas from the same pod,” according to Houston-area immigration lawyer Annie Banerjee, when you also consider what she calls “the federal version.” But there’s also a difference of degree in the Arizona statute. “Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported, that’s insane,” she says. Considering that an estimated 11 million immigrants may have already entered the U.S. illegally, it would also almost certainly overwhelm the system.

In its recent lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department asserts that its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. “That’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not strictly true,” asserts Banerjee, “there have been quite a few serious abuses involved with enforcement of the federal version too.”

The sentiment in Arizona preaches that an overwhelmed system is no excuse for not deporting illegal aliens. “If it’s really the case that they don’t have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it’s incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources,” said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. “But since they don’t do that, it sort of undermines the argument.”

“I don’t know what he’s smoking,” counters Banerjee, “that’s ludicrous to say. To use all of law enforcement’s resources to expel foreign nationals who are here in violation of our immigration law, would mean that the cops wouldn’t have time to do anything else. Forget about solving most violent crimes. It just wouldn’t happen.”

State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.

The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented. “If only they’d crack down on abuses committed in the name of the federal law,” Banerjee lamented.

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com.

The justice Department’s suit to block the restrictive law in Arizona is heralded by everyone as an “immigration issue.” Both Wall Street Journal and New York Times have huge headings under “Immigration Law.” But the question is not about immigration law. It is about the fundamental human right to not be judged by the color of our skin.

The proponents of the bill, like Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce say that the bill “prohibits racial profiling.” But I wonder if every individual is stopped and asked for their passports. The will cripple business in the State. Will everyone, ie white, black, brown, yellow, and whatever other color or look need to take their passports, birth certificates, etc to Arizona?

I naturalized into this country and is in the highest tax bracket. I work and pay taxes. Yet I am brown and have an accent. As a practitioner of immigration law, I know say for instance white Canadian who are here, in the US, working illegally, but are white and except for a slight “oot and aboot” has no other accent. Who will the Arizona police “catch”?

The lawsuit is also about separate state and federal rights. The Conservative Supreme Court will champion State rights, but it will remain to be seen whether they champion Separation of Powers. My guess is that their judgment will be clouded by the more emotional issue of immigration.

For more information contact Houston Immigration Lawyer or Houston Immigration Attorney, Annie Banerjee