A new company just applied for "H-1B transfer" by premium processing this week. All I can say is wtf?
I'm in a potential limbo state here because:
- I am on a notice period for impending layoffs later in the month
- I found a new job, did all the documentation crap and my new company filed already. Hopefully, I'll get a decision in 2 weeks
- If not (say I get an RFE or get denied for the transfer), I lose my status because I couldn't transfer to the new company && my old company will lay me off, rendering my old h1b invalid
- In an RFE or denial, I will have to look for a job again in 60 days. For that h1b, it'll take them 7 months to tell me if it is approved or not. I can start working for the new company while this processing is going on though
- Say, I get laid off in those 7 months again. What does that mean for my status? Can I legally change to a new H1b with another company?
- Say, they come after 7 months and tell me it wasn't approved, does that mean I was working illegally so far?
This ambiguous and random pile of regulation over regulation sometimes makes me think, hey, it's better to just get out of this place and live somewhere else in peace. For all their talks of supporting legal immigration, US immigration process is incredibly slow, hinges on random pieces of paper and doesn't factor in that an individual can have life changing circumstances in this long duration. Life changing circumstances include marriages, family issues, health issues, lay offs etc.
The only way an individual can navigate this PROLONGED bureaucracy is if they have no dependents, no family issues, no health issues, no girlfriends/boyfriends/wives/husbands...so that they can keep fighting random nonsensical regulations, RFEs and denials.
Typically all you need after filing the transfer is the receipt from USCIS to start work at the new firm. You don't have to wait for a decision, so go to your new company and set a new start date.
AFAIK Its very rare to get a H1B denial or RFE, but YMMV
This is technically correct. But the regular processing can take months and you are fucked if there is any sort of emergency in the family(back in your homeland) and you have to travel.
That seems incorrect, given both their actual actions (including immediate and without warning discontinuation of existing visas) and rhetoric ("[T]hey're not sending their best.")
Trump administration has a very hostile rhetoric against ANY immigrants. For illegals, they are criminals, and the legal ones are stealing the Americans their jobs!
That is what I read from his campaign. Of cause, for legals, he might not take action too soon before he had enough dealing with illegal immigrants. However legal or illegal, both are not welcomed by he and his supporters, just a matter of priority.
As a non-US person I must ask, what do you mean by non-immigrant? That's presumably a specific technical meaning, because people who come to live in a country on a visa are, by definition, immigrants. Does it just mean that it is meant for temporary residence?
This is not the same as the new suspension. The one in 2015 only affected extension of stay applications (if you want to extend your visa beyond 6 years). Typically people start the extension of stay process well in advance (USCIS lets you start at most 6 months before expiry).
The current one affects anyone trying to file a new petition (including those that are cap-exempt). If someone wants to switch employers they cannot use premium processing, which affects their ability to travel internationally and/or move jobs.
The link I pavanky's post spells it out in plain English:
> Starting May 26, 2015, USCIS will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B extension of stay petitions until July 27, 2015. During this time frame, petitioners will not be able to file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, for a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, requesting an extension of the stay for an H-1B nonimmigrant.
In summary, yes the 2015 stay was just for extensions. No it wasn't for all applications.
I wish more headlines came with caveats like this one. In just as bold lettering. The last couple of months has not been great for the mitigation of clickbait.
IMHO the real disclaimer that is needed is an explanation of what premium processing is. Not being able to pay to put your application towards the top of the pile is likely not the first image that title invokes for many people.
I think you overestimating the number of immigrants who know it - or underestimating variety of ways people can immigrate. I am an immigrant who went through the whole process, have red websites, etc. - still don't know what exactly that is (beyond reasonable guesses anybody could do).
Of course, I'm not arguing with the USCIS's choice of title (I have heard of premium processing before, though I'm not an immigrant). But it would be nice if when this hit public media there would be some effort to explain that term (though I'm not remotely optimistic about that).
Immigrants don't get H1 visas. That's a non-immigrant visa. This conflating of 'immigrant' and 'temporary highly skilled worker' is concerning. The same incorrect rhetoric is used when discussing illegal immigrantion. People say 'anti-immigrant' when an illegal immigrant is a subset of 'immigrants,' thus being anti-illegal immigrant isn't the same as being anti-immigrant.
H1-B visas are dual purpose; they support intent to transition to permanent residency, and have a defined procedure for the same.
In particular, I don't think many skilled employees with a global choice of employers are going to move to a country for a 3 or 6 year stint with deportation waiting at the end of the period. The costs and trouble of moving don't make it worthwhile, and it's hard to predict what life will bring - it's best to maximize all options. So I think anyone migrating to the US on a H1-B visa will also end up going through the permanent residency application process, just so they don't face a cliff edge after 6 years. That would make them migrants at the start of the process, rather than some kind of seasonal workers.
I really appreciate the transparency. This is something you don't usually see accompany government decisions. All government decisions, laws and regulations should be accompanied by a list of what the decision is supposed to accomplish, and then the media can check whether the decision was effective. Better for democracy.
> Why We Are Temporarily Suspending Premium Processing for H-1B Petitions
> This temporary suspension will help us to reduce overall H-1B processing times. By temporarily suspending premium processing, we will be able to:
> Process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years; and
> Prioritize adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240 day mark.
"This temporary suspension will help us to reduce overall H-1B processing times. By temporarily suspending premium processing, we will be able to:
Process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years; and
Prioritize adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240 day mark. "
> Process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years
You'd think the $1,225 paid for every premium processing request would allow them to hire more people to tackle the backlog, but I guess not, maybe they just reroute that money elsewhere :P
USCIS is under department of homeland security now. Possibly where it is rerouted too. The cost of all applications have gone up by a fairly large amount imho since the DOJ days. I looked into this when I was trying to figure out the costs for my own application some time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Citizenship_and_...
I'd think the $1,225 paid would be allowing them to hire more people to expedite the premium processing. You can't offer premium processing without additional processing capacity. For a while you might get away with just moving premium requests to the front of the queue, but that breaks down after a certain point and in order to meet whatever timeline they are promising, they will need to have the capacity to handle all the premium applications within that time.
The premium processing service has been around for years, most of the time there isn't a hiring freeze.
I guess if they were planning to use the premium processing fees to hire a bunch of extra people for the April application deadline the hiring freeze will stymie that, which just shows how stupid a general hiring freeze is.
Growth in volume/demand. They probably did hire more people over time, but needed to hire more since January to meet current deadlines. Since the freeze has been in effect for a few months now, that probably had a detrimental effect on their ability to adapt to any increased volume.
USCIS is self-funded. They exist via the fees paid. To quote them[0]:
> USCIS is funded primarily by immigration and naturalization benefit fees charged to applicants and petitioners. Fees collected from individuals or organizations filing immigration benefit requests are deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA). Congress created the IEFA in 1988, establishing the authority to recover the full cost of immigration benefit processing. This account represents approximately 95 percent of USCIS’ fiscal year (FY) 2016 total budget authority. The remaining budget authority comes from two other mandatory fee accounts and appropriated funding for the E-Verify program.
The insanity of the immigration debate is the amount of jobs that will be lost to automation, consolidation and decreased domestic investment. The wage gains and skill gaps that will result from decreased immigration (legal or illegal) are going to force companies to alternatives. Yes, wages will rise. Yes, there will be investment in retraining and rehabilitation of un(under)employed. It will not be enough.
Its popular with Trump's base, and I support some of Trump's policies. It may even prove to be a price worth paying for a short time. Long run its pure stupidity.
There's always the opportunity cost. What if the next Steve Jobs, Sergey, page or any number of immigrants who started successful companies don't come to US but go somewhere else.
Making the world scared of coming to US can have irreversible effects.
The is a weak argument. Nobody holds the spirit of capitalism.... People already in the US are jobless...so the state has to get them back to work. I am not a US citizen, but I feel sorry for poor and jobless Americans.
Steve Jobs wasn't an immigrant. Using Steve Jobs as some kind of H1B argument is silly. This is a false equivalency. H1 visas are not about importing the next Sergey; the vast, vast majority are about filling skilled jobs at lower wages than the current supply of workers in the US would support. Some world renowned robotics or AI engineer doesn't need an H1, s/he can apply for an EB visa. H1 visa restrictions aren't 'harming' anyone except companies that want to pay less than the US market currently would support. The evidence is the firing of employees at San Francisco State University in order to outsource the work to cheaper foreign labor. In San Fran State's case, there isn't a shortage -- they actually fired qualified experienced people. Thus the 'solving shortages' argument is practically bullshit. The 'shortage' exists when the desired wage is lower than the supply of those willing to work for that wage. Pretending that H1 is going to bring in the next Sergey et al -- that's just hyperbolic nonsense not supported by the statistics. The next Sergey isn't coming in on an H1 with Infosys -- ultra improbable.
The EB-1 visa is designed for the future Sergeys and it's an entirely different category than H1s. Then there is the EB-2 for the highly educated and are employment based. Finally there is the EB-3 for highly skilled immigrants.
H1b visas are for TEMPORARY, NON-Immigrant, workers in a specialty occupation.
Considering this is Hacker News, it suprising how immigration and H1 seem to be conflated almost every time H1 is discussed. If people want to immigrate to the US, an EB is the appropriate visa for highly skilled workers. Those using the H1 as a backdoor to a green card are essentially committing fraud if their intent when getting the H1 is to ultimately qualify for permanent residency. I would argue that an H1 should never be granted residency but instead an appropriate EB visa applied for instead.
So much misinformation. H1 is a dual intent visa. So, it is okay to have immigration intent (intent to eventually get a permanent residency) when applying for a H1-B and it is not fraud. There is no way to permanently reside in the US using H1-B visa. Almost everyone will get a green card eventually using EB visas.
The EB-1 requires that the person is already successful. But why would such a person come to the US? There are better places to live, once you have enough money.
Even EB-1 (Green Card -applicants) folks, typically Phd-s, first apply for H1B. Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft - every fortune 100 company - all apply for H1Bs. It is just that Indian & US based IT service companies - TCS, InfoSys, Wipro, Cognizant (US) apply for more. Green Cards (EB-1, EB-2,EB-3) are for permanent residency. H1B is temporary work visa valid only for 6 years.
In some states, the validity of the Driver's License (DL) is aligned with the H1-B petition expiry date and I am in one of those states. My current petition expires in 4 months. Ideally my employer would have applied my H1-B extension under premium processing so that I am not without a valid DL but with this new rule, we'd have to go with regular processing and wait for the approved petition before I can get my DL extended meaning I'll be without a valid DL for some time which is a real pain. Ideally DMV should extend the DL based on the receipt for the petition but a lot of states, including the one where I am, don't do that.
Can anyone shed more light on what happens in the following scenario:
You get terminated/leave your current job and activate the new 60 day grace period to find a new job. Provided that a H1B transfer to a new employer can take more than 60 days now. Does one need to leave the country forcefully?
But the only problem is, if you are already terminated, you shouldn't apply for a H-1B transfer. It would be like applying fresh, except you don't have to go through lottery. And also because this is a new visa, you are not qualified to work based on the H-1B portability rule either. So you have to wait until it is approved before you join the new company.
I recall that there had been a new ruling (Jan 17) on this though limited to people with an approved I140 petition. This ensures that your petition remains valid and you are eligible for a transfer even if your existing employer withdraws your petition. That should hopefully provide some respite for people who were terminated.
> But the only problem is, if you are already terminated, you shouldn't apply for a H-1B transfer
Thats not how it works unless the company that terminated your employment also revokes your H1-B visa. if your transfer is filed before the revocation then you're mostly fine, but now that theres no premium processing who knows?
AFAICT, there are no companies that allow this since its against the law. Do you have some links where I can read more on this or what companies allow it?
EDIT: Thanks everyone for clearing it out. Looks like it's allowed and documented here: https://www.murthy.com/2011/06/27/h1b-faqs/ (Ques. 5). Not an official USCIS link though.
This is not against the law. If your visa is current, you can start working as soon as you get the receipt notice for the new H-1B application https://www.murthy.com/2011/06/27/h1b-faqs/
The last 4 companies I joined (all fortune) allowed this. In fact they were pressing for me to start. As OP said, all you need is the application receipt.
> and activate the new 60 day grace period to find a new job.
Just FYI, this 60 day "grace" period is a bit of an unspoken rule, in reality though, you're expected to leave the US as soon as your job is terminated/visa is revoked, so make sure if you can that the terminating company doesn't revoke your visa within 45-60 days, or else you'll be in a lot of trouble, even if you find a company willing to transfer your visa in that time period.
> This temporary suspension will help us to reduce overall H-1B processing time
Overall, This is good. A lot of "regular" cases are stuck in backlog (see: http://www.aila.org/infonet/processing-time-reports/csc/2017...). Ideally, you want them to increase the workforce to handle all the cases but if that's not possible this is the right response for the current situation.
If your process is backlogged such that you cannot handle all traffic in a cycle (covering peak and trough), refusing new traffic won't help and will only add to the backlog.
Hi, I will be completing six year by September 2017. I am hoping to get my I140 approved by June end. I was under the impression that H1B extension can be done by premium processing so that I can stay beyond my six years. But this is shocking news for me. My attorney is saying that even my H1B can't be filed in premium. Is that true ? Please advise.
I just moved to a new company so I can talk about the H1b transfers. When you apply for a H1b transfer, currently it is taking 8-9 months before you can get the final approval. You can however work for the new company while this process is going on.
That said, you (or your employer) can pay about $1k which sort of puts your application at the top of the pile. If you go down this route, you end up getting the approval in about 2 weeks.
There are reasons why people choose premium processing. For example if they have to go out of the country within the next 6-8 months, it is best if you have the H1b approval documents with you.
Shouldn't this system allow USCIS to hire the adequate staff to handle the premium applications on a separate load than the regular pipeline? They seem to be shutting this down to help the regular H1-B application pipeline, that means all applications were being handled by the same staff, which seems silly.
There are insane amount of H1B applications (I think there were over 200,000 last year). Ofcourse they use the lottery to process about "only" 85,000 of them.
This does not include H1B transfers and other stuff USCIS handles.
I don't know the exact details of DHS and UCSIS but typically, the number of employees is set by the Federal Budget and the have may have limited flexibility to hire more.
To do something like that there would probably have to be special language written into the budget and it would have to be approved by Congress.
Depends if $1k is commensurate to the additional work needed, and if they can find enough staff to hire to put the money to good use. At least one of those failing to be true seems fairly likely to me.
Yes, I probably should have wrote something like "commensurate to the amount of work/money USCIS's structure requires before it will process the application." I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue that USCIS operates at near-optimal levels of efficiency ;)
Basically it means that you get bumped up in the queue. Which when you think about it is really a very odd feature to add to a government (i.e. non-profit generating) service.
It's a good way to deal with scarcity. And scarcity is definitely an issue when the government agency in question doesn't necessarily have the resources available to them to actually perform at the level that they need to due to funding and political football.
Paying a premium for expedited service is fine (I'm sure you've paid USPS a few extra bucks to mail your package faster), but I do agree that it should be applied judiciously.
The State Department has a similar service for expediting passports. It's great because it lets people that actually need it fast to prioritize themselves by paying more.
When the normal queue is 9 months, it would be immoral not to have any ways to jump to the front. Like the WWDC selling out in seconds, it might be "fair" but it's clearly not the optimal solution.
It's better to have recourse. Either everybody waits a ton of time, or some people barely wait and some people wait a ton of time. Why drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator because of "fairness"?
This has nothing to do with Trump, or national threats. No F1B holder is superior to the others, but I'm glad that there's a way to jump the line if you have the means.
Attempting to frame opposition to lowest-common-denominator-politics as a equivalent to racism and other -isms with a word made up by sociologists is laughable. A Porsche costs more than a Toyota. 2-weeks processing costs more and uses more resources than 9-month processing, and you can pay for it if you wish. If everybody paid the premium fee, then USCIS could hire more, and everybody could get it done in 2 weeks. Couldn't be fairer. USCIS is entirely (99%) funded by applicant fees, so this is literally how it works.
It's companies paying an extra fee (around $1000 I think) to have expedited processing of applications. It means you're guaranteed a response (for or against) in a shorter period of time, I think 14 days. It's commonly used, in my experience.
I was at an immigration talk recently and the lawyer advised against it saying the office managing the expedited applications (SoCal) is stricter than the regular process.
For anyone confused/concerned, the title of this thread is currently "USCIS Will Temporarily Suspend Premium Processing for All Petitions" despite only H-1Bs actually being affected. The title should probably be updated to clarify it only affects one category (H-1B).
Whoops that was our mistake. Meant only to take out the superfluous bit at the end of "USCIS Will Temporarily Suspend Premium Processing for All H-1B Petitions – USCIS" but somehow the H1-Bs got swept up as well.
Convincing ~50% of Americans that Mexicans don't want to steal their jobs, rape their wives/daughters, or give their kids drugs.
I'm on your team, but we've got a long way to go to get America ready for open borders, even with our nearest neighbors that are longtime trading partners and allies.
You don't need to give up sovereignty for open borders. The EU model, recent Trumpian behavior in the UK aside, works quite well. Freedom of movement and of labor are good things, if you can convince people of it. Remember, borders are just imaginary anyways.
The imaginary thing was just an aside, my point was that rule of law and sovereignty can remain (and should, IMO) even with open borders in the immigration sense. I view 'countries' as experiments in human self-organization -- the more the merrier up to a point.
European nations are able to retain both language and national identity in spite of freedom of movement.
The EU leadership seems to have a problem with that, and is actively working against nations having a national identity, spending tax money to do this.
And this is why open borders are becoming increasingly unpopular in Europe.
I don't believe that's necessary, at all. Free movement is not the same as "dissolve" bordering states.
There are challenges on both sides of the border, but losing sovereignty isn't one of them. It just takes both states agreeing to the terms, which has been done in numerous states across Europe for many years, without disaster.
I think for that to happen, we'd have to have universal health-care, at the minimum, along with lots of other details. Maybe a fair court system, gun control, proper environmental actions, etc..
All these details are negotiable. The question is: what would it actually take to do that?
The US can't provide universal health care to its own citizens...how could it offer it to tens of millions of poor Mexicans.
Gun control is an issue in the US now, imagine the arguments against it when really nasty criminals really do have sizable armories. Good luck convincing the average person to give up the right to carry a pistol.
"The US can't provide universal health care to its own citizens...how could it offer it to tens of millions of poor Mexicans."
I agree there is a challenge here (because I support universal healthcare and I support open borders, while seeing how that could be disastrous for fiscal responsibility). It really should have happened years ago...Mexico would be economically healthier (though they're actually in better shape than most Americans have been led to believe), and it would be easier to find a path toward universal healthcare across the continent, so that'd no longer be a major factor for where people choose to live.
Also, by even the most pessimistic measure immigrants become a net positive for our economy by the second generation...and that fact is a big part of US economic growth over most of its existence. So, we just need to find a way to hasten that transition to contributing member of society, reduce the inefficiencies of the "emergency room and debt" universal healthcare system we currently have for immigrants, the homeless, etc., and negotiate with Mexico to normalize services across the continent (normalizing means we've got to start to catch up with Canada, too).
Sure, it's a longterm project, but I think it's worth doing. Economic growth in the US has slowed tremendously. Expanding our trade with Mexico, including free movement of human capital, would be a great thing, IMHO.
We're just in such an ugly time in our history. People are lashing out at any convenient scapegoat, and a few billionaires are happy to point at Mexicans, lest people start to question their own motives and actions.
I mean the cartels do control a number of metro areas. What's the argument for Americans allowing them to spread throughout the US (more so) than they already have?
Most Mexicans are good people (like everyone else), but there are "bad guys" and horrors. What's the argument for allowing their spread?
Not that interested in piles of mutilated corpses in major towns...you can find plenty of examples of narco terrorism like that.
That's overblown, to some degree (in the same way some exaggerate "inner city" crime in the US). It exists, and in places where it does, it is horrifying. And, it is partly the fault of, and responsibility of, US drug policy.
We should own that, instead of shaking our heads and lamenting how awful Mexican crime is. It is American crime, too, it just happens south of the border because that's how the economic incentives our failed drug policy dictate things will go. Yes, there's higher corruption, at the police and judicial level, and that plays a role. And, yes, there is higher poverty, which empowers criminals and enables recruiting. All are solvable and a significant portion of the solutions are on our side of the border. We've been shitting on Mexico with our failed drug policy for decades.
I agree that much of it is the US's fault and that the US changing policy could help dramatically.
That being said, if that happened today the cartels still exist and they'll exist for several generations and they'll still have military, police, and government collaborators. Unless that goes away then the mindset which allowed the cartels to engage in what is essentially a cold civil war and has allowed more than 100,000 people to be killed (many tortured) will continue to exist.
Until that stops existing there's no way in hell the US should open their borders and allow movement into US territory. You'd have the cartels (heavily armed and financed) moving into US cities and claiming turf, and then you'd have that violence here and even more guns available. It just isn't worth it. The cartels could be more powerful than the Italian mob ever was.
If the cartels lose influence and Mexico becomes a much less violent place in a few generations, maybe then you can consider opening the borders. But how would it happen any time soon without harming a lot of innocent people?
It's hard to exaggerate the brutality or (potential) reach of the cartels:
Do cartels even exist in the US? Why would cartels be in the US with open borders?
Doesn't open borders mean US law enforcement, like the DEA/FBI, gets to operate in Mexico now? How would the cartels survive under that, if they can't even survive in the US?
Yes, they do. Quick googling (reputable sources) show that. They're especially prevalent in the prison system. Production and transport is through Mexico but consumers are in the US so they exist on both sides of the border.
Why would the cartels not move into the US given the chance? You underestimate their reach, there's no way the DEA/FBI could shut them down when they can't control the drug war as it is.
If you aren't aware of them in the US it's because they aren't as open about violence.
Well I suppose we can expect some inflation due to the costs of losing Mexican migrant labor. That could be a start to convince Americans that we need these kinds of open borders.
But I guess a real open-borders system would require things like common currencies or common judicial system across North America?
You're supposed to look at what an optimal currency area is, and see if it applies. Don't just take Wikipedia's opinion for it.
It's not. Cultural, language differences, asymmetric shocks, many reasons why. It would be the same catastrophe as the euro, where the euro is severely undervalued for Germany's economy, unfairly helping their exports, and severely overvalued for Greece, unfairly harming their exports.
Wasn't it obvious that USCIS has not utilized modern technologies to boost efficiency, but use its own inefficiency to boost its size?
Any decent large corporation of this size should handle a large number of customers with ease. That number, I guess, would be orders magnitude more than USCIS' incoming requests. You may argue the case for USCIS is more complicated. Granted that, I still think the amount of work is much larger than USCIS.
Wolf in the sheep's clothing. When GovernMint says something you should look for whats hidden in the policy.
1. So if I want to change companies now I have to wait for few months to get the new petition in hand. Tell me I can't travel to my home country during this period!
This is essentially friction to job changing. This is clearly against the current administration's policy of Murica first and no to cheap labor.
2. On OPT ? Wait for unknown period of time to know if H1B gets picked in lottery or if it gets approved. Better go home.
3. So far FB, Google etc are always happy doing premium processing where as cheapo Indian companies avoided it. This is another big boost to cheap labor importers.
Frankly, premium processing is abused. I recently switched jobs and just needed a transfer application acknowledgement to start the new job, however, the company offered to pay for premium processing and I gladly took it.
Honestly, they should raise the prices to $5000 with exceptions for financial hardships(they already have this) to weed out non-essential usage of premium processing.
I'm in a potential limbo state here because:
- I am on a notice period for impending layoffs later in the month
- I found a new job, did all the documentation crap and my new company filed already. Hopefully, I'll get a decision in 2 weeks
- If not (say I get an RFE or get denied for the transfer), I lose my status because I couldn't transfer to the new company && my old company will lay me off, rendering my old h1b invalid
- In an RFE or denial, I will have to look for a job again in 60 days. For that h1b, it'll take them 7 months to tell me if it is approved or not. I can start working for the new company while this processing is going on though
- Say, I get laid off in those 7 months again. What does that mean for my status? Can I legally change to a new H1b with another company?
- Say, they come after 7 months and tell me it wasn't approved, does that mean I was working illegally so far?
This ambiguous and random pile of regulation over regulation sometimes makes me think, hey, it's better to just get out of this place and live somewhere else in peace. For all their talks of supporting legal immigration, US immigration process is incredibly slow, hinges on random pieces of paper and doesn't factor in that an individual can have life changing circumstances in this long duration. Life changing circumstances include marriages, family issues, health issues, lay offs etc.
The only way an individual can navigate this PROLONGED bureaucracy is if they have no dependents, no family issues, no health issues, no girlfriends/boyfriends/wives/husbands...so that they can keep fighting random nonsensical regulations, RFEs and denials.
Sigh!