In a letter to Senator Grassley, the CIS defended their H-1B adjudication practices and their everything under the kitchen sink Request for Evidences.
The CIS is looking into revising the form I-129 to have Petitioner and beneficiary both attest that:
The beneficiary has been advised of the offsite placement and accepts the terms of the H-IB employment, including the job location and possible relocation;
Really? Does anyone working for the software industry not know that they have to work off site. These people are always traveling, the beneficiary KNOWS they have to work off site. Same with Oil Company Engineers. Its the nature of their work. Does CIS seriously think the beneficiary does not know?
2. Placement of the beneficiary offsite during the period of employment will be in compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the H-IB nonimmigrant classification;
3. The beneficiary will be paid the prevailing rate of pay at any offsite
This is in line with the question on the I-94 application on the plane, “Are you a terrorist.” Has anyone ever answered yes to that question? Similarly, will anyone filing an H-1B petition ever say they will not comply with the law?
4. The work itinerary is attached.
The H-1B is given for 3 years. It is difficult to predict the itinerary for all those 3 years. If the work itinerary is for less than 3 years, then the employer has to file the whole H-1B again, with the high fees. And even if they have the work itinerary, the job may be canceled, etc. So what is the point of private employers filing job itineraries with the Government?
All of this simply penalizes the small employers who form the backbone of the American economy.
Contact Houston Immigration Lawyer, Annie Banerjee for more details