USCIS Is Denying More Employment-Related Immigration Filings This Year

[Chris Duffy 1,256]

3 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Won't they just outsource to India, or raise prices?  

I believe they do outsource, it is not my industry. I have some pretty good buddies in the IT industry and what I know I learn from them.

[refugee 169]

4 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Won't they just outsource to India, or raise prices?  

You make a great point, for technology the use of H1-B actually prevents offshore and outsourcing.

[Dashinka 23,238]

20 hours ago, refugee said:

I think the author is depending on data from the Cato institute:

 

"The data for the first nine months of fiscal year (FY) 2018, which started in October 2017, show that denials for all manner of immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016," said David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

 

I disagree that the article title is misleading.  It is based on a fairly reliable analysts estimated. It may be that applications have increased creating more denials, but from the standpoint of this author supporting businesses trying to get visas the impact is real to their goals and bottom lines.

Actually it is misleading, when you state the discussion is about employment based visas in the headline, that is what should be discussed in the story.  Now, I do not have any issues with the Cato Institute's study although their analysis also seems a bit biased when they choose to only look at 2016.  If one goes back to 2013 and 2014, we can see denial rates for both family based and employment based immigration being higher in certain categories than 2018 (Table 1 in the report).  For a closer look, I have provided the link to the Cato Institute's report.  One thing the study does fail on is that it draws the conclusion that the rates in 2018 are solely due to an anti-immigrant sentiment by the current administration without knowing the reasons for the denials.  One thing that has changed as we know is that USCIS is not tolerating incomplete applications like they may have in the past.  We hear of stories almost everyday of folks being denied at the USCIS stage because they forgot something simple as required by the instructions.  Additionally, there were fewer applications to USCIS (projected) for 2018 than 2016, so that will affect the numbers as well.

 

Overall, I think it is a good study as sifting through the USCIS ourselves can be tedious, but I am not sure the conclusions are totally valid.

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-application-denials-jump-37-percent-under-trump

[refugee 169]

59 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Actually it is misleading, when you state the discussion is about employment based visas in the headline, that is what should be discussed in the story.  Now, I do not have any issues with the Cato Institute's study although their analysis also seems a bit biased when they choose to only look at 2016.  If one goes back to 2013 and 2014, we can see denial rates for both family based and employment based immigration being higher in certain categories than 2018 (Table 1 in the report).  For a closer look, I have provided the link to the Cato Institute's report.  One thing the study does fail on is that it draws the conclusion that the rates in 2018 are solely due to an anti-immigrant sentiment by the current administration without knowing the reasons for the denials.  One thing that has changed as we know is that USCIS is not tolerating incomplete applications like they may have in the past.  We hear of stories almost everyday of folks being denied at the USCIS stage because they forgot something simple as required by the instructions.  Additionally, there were fewer applications to USCIS (projected) for 2018 than 2016, so that will affect the numbers as well.

 

Overall, I think it is a good study as sifting through the USCIS ourselves can be tedious, but I am not sure the conclusions are totally valid.

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-application-denials-jump-37-percent-under-trump

You are off base in stating that I have posted a deceptive headline.

 

The headline is the headline found on the original posting. The posting is in the Society for Human Resource Management and has advice from lawyers on how to mitigate this risk under

"Employer Takeaways"

 

Additionally there is a forum for discussion that goes deeper. Of course Employment Immigration touches on family Immigration because employees want to bring their families. 

 

I think the problem is my postings on immigration news continue to get moved from Immigration News to this forum where the discussion moves into political and social dimensions off the topic. 

 

Perhaps the mods should clarify the charter of Immigration News if I am posting in the wrong spot.

Edited December 10, 2018 by refugee

[Dashinka 23,238]

2 minutes ago, refugee said:

You are off base in stating that I have posted a deceptive headline.

 

The headline is the headline found on the original posting. The posting is in the Society for Human Resource Management and has advice from lawyers on how to mitigate this risk under

"Employer Takeaways"

 

Additionally there is a forum for discussion that goes deeper. Of course Employment Immigration touches on family Immigration because employees want to bring their families. 

 

I think the problem is my postings on immigration news continue to get moved from Immigration News to this forum where the discussion moves into political and social dimensions off the topic. 

 

Perhaps the mods should clarify the charter of Immigration News if I am posting in the wrong spot.

Excuse me?  Did you write either the headline or the article?  I have in no way said you were wrong in posting it, but if you are so insecure that the criticism of an article or headline you did not write you may want to see someone.  Since the story in the OP (re-read the first sentence of the OP article) and quite honestly in the Cato Institute's report was clearly political, maybe it does belong here, but that is up to the moderators.  Maybe the Immigration News section should be combined with CEHST, but again, that is not up to me.  Regardless, my analysis of the actual Cato Institute's study and report still stand, would you like to discuss that, or just keep on blaming Trump for everything?

 

 

 

 

[refugee 169]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Excuse me?  Did you write either the headline or the article?  I have in no way said you were wrong in posting it, but if you are so insecure that the criticism of an article or headline you did not write you may want to see someone.  Since the story in the OP (re-read the first sentence of the OP article) and quite honestly in the Cato Institute's report was clearly political, maybe it does belong here, but that is up to the moderators.  Maybe the Immigration News section should be combined with CEHST, but again, that is not up to me.  Regardless, my analysis of the actual Cato Institute's study and report still stand, would you like to discuss that, or just keep on blaming Trump for everything?

 

 

 

 

Excuse me back at you. No insecurities here.

 

This us your statement.

 

"Actually it is misleading, when you state the discussion is about employment based visas in the headline, that is what should be discussed in the story"

 

I took the you to refer to me.  Additionally I have tried to keep this thread on topic and the President  was not brought into the discussion

 

Again, you are in the wrong in maintaining that the shrm article is not about Employment Visas. 

 

Yes CATO is a libertarian organization with a pro immigration bias, but their analysis is respected. Yes the supplemental CATO material covers all aspects of immigration, but the elements pulled into the article are about Employment.

 

The meat of the article is the interview of various lawyers who are guiding employers into the correct course of action to meet their business goals. 

[Dashinka 23,238]

11 minutes ago, refugee said:

Excuse me back at you. No insecurities here.

 

This us your statement.

 

"Actually it is misleading, when you state the discussion is about employment based visas in the headline, that is what should be discussed in the story"

 

I took the you to refer to me.  Additionally I have tried to keep this thread on topic and the President  was not brought into the discussion

 

Again, you are in the wrong in maintaining that the shrm article is not about Employment Visas. 

 

Yes CATO is a libertarian organization with a pro immigration bias, but their analysis is respected. Yes the supplemental CATO material covers all aspects of immigration, but the elements pulled into the article are about Employment.

 

The meat of the article is the interview of various lawyers who are guiding employers into the correct course of action to meet their business goals. 

 

The pronoun "you" in this context was talking about the person that wrote the article and the headline (usually not the same person) if this was not you personally, then it was not talking about you yourself.   The President was mentioned in the first sentence of the article you posted, how is that not relevant to the thread topic?  I also did not disrespect the Cato Institute, I only questioned why they chose to only look at a 2018-2016 comparison.  Is this august organization above being questioned?  Again, I would think an article as to why there are more denials would be more helpful to HR departments.  If it because of something related to how the paperwork is filled out or the application is submitted then it could be on them and their immigration lawyers and fixable.  If it is just because of the restrictive nature of President Trump's legal immigration policies it is certainly something outside their control.  Btw, there was an even bigger spike in denials of employment based I129s from 2013 to 2014 (~42% increase), I suppose policies changed at that point as well. 

[refugee 169]

25 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The pronoun "you" in this context was talking about the person that wrote the article and the headline (usually not the same person) if this was not you personally, then it was not talking about you yourself.   The President was mentioned in the first sentence of the article you posted, how is that not relevant to the thread topic?  I also did not disrespect the Cato Institute, I only questioned why they chose to only look at a 2018-2016 comparison.  Is this august organization above being questioned?  Again, I would think an article as to why there are more denials would be more helpful to HR departments.  If it because of something related to how the paperwork is filled out or the application is submitted then it could be on them and their immigration lawyers and fixable.  If it is just because of the restrictive nature of President Trump's legal immigration policies it is certainly something outside their control.  Btw, there was an even bigger spike in denials of employment based I129s from 2013 to 2014 (~42% increase), I suppose policies changed at that point as well. 

Thank you for clarifying that I did not breach protocol with a misleading headline.

 

 

You articulate a quaint and old fashioned view of HR. They are not talking about  clerical errors, they are talking about the legal strategy a firm might consider to maintain a competitive advantage in recruitment. That is the drive of the posting. Modern firms outsource their processing of these documents and errors are really quite rare, RFIs are reduced as well.

[Dashinka 23,238]

13 minutes ago, refugee said:

Thank you for clarifying that I did not breach protocol with a misleading headline.

 

 

You articulate a quaint and old fashioned view of HR. They are not talking about  clerical errors, they are talking about the legal strategy a firm might consider to maintain a competitive advantage in recruitment. That is the drive of the posting. Modern firms outsource their processing of these documents and errors are really quite rare, RFIs are reduced as well.

So now I am quaint and old fashioned?  You are correct, HR today doesn't really do anything, they outsource the majority of their function to outside firms and most of the actual HR employees I deal with have no idea how any of it works (first hand experience).  Btw, immigration attorneys make errors a lot more than you might expect.  A search here would show quite a few anecdotal items.  Hence the reason I believe a story as to why there are more denials at the USCIS stage would be more helpful, maybe there are some immigration lawyers not worth using anymore

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

Thank you for clarifying that I did not breach protocol with a misleading headline.

 

 

You articulate a quaint and old fashioned view of HR. They are not talking about  clerical errors, they are talking about the legal strategy a firm might consider to maintain a competitive advantage in recruitment. That is the drive of the posting. Modern firms outsource their processing of these documents and errors are really quite rare, RFIs are reduced as well.

This is why the TOS requires us to post the headline exactly as it is written elsewhere.  Sometimes, people have a tendency to re-word said headlines when posting here, but those usually get caught rather quickly and corrected.  

 

When Bill called the headline into question, I knew he meant the article, not you, because of this rule.

[Dashinka 23,238]

2 hours ago, Satisfied said:

This is why the TOS requires us to post the headline exactly as it is written elsewhere.  Sometimes, people have a tendency to re-word said headlines when posting here, but those usually get caught rather quickly and corrected.  

 

When Bill called the headline into question, I knew he meant the article, not you, because of this rule.

To be clear, the headline does match exactly the story that was posted and linked.  My question was more toward the writers of both the story and the headline as they do not match exactly from the standpoint that the headline leads one to the direction that the story is about employment based applications only, but the story covers all levels of immigration.

[refugee 169]

2 hours ago, Satisfied said:

This is why the TOS requires us to post the headline exactly as it is written elsewhere.  Sometimes, people have a tendency to re-word said headlines when posting here, but those usually get caught rather quickly and corrected.  

 

When Bill called the headline into question, I knew he meant the article, not you, because of this rule.

Looks as TOS, cannot find this rule.

[Dashinka 23,238]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

Looks as TOS, cannot find this rule.

You actually will not find that rule in the TOS, but it is the generally accepted practice.  Regardless, it is a non-issue in this case.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, refugee said:

Looks as TOS, cannot find this rule.

Very first post in CEHST.  Sorry, not TOS per se, but it is like a sub-chapter.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

To be clear, the headline does match exactly the story that was posted and linked.  My question was more toward the writers of both the story and the headline as they do not match exactly from the standpoint that the headline leads one to the direction that the story is about employment based applications only, but the story covers all levels of immigration.

I know what you meant when you said it, you were quite clear.  

[Dashinka 23,238]

47 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Very first post in CEHST.  Sorry, not TOS per se, but it is like a sub-chapter.

 

 

I know what you meant when you said it, you were quite clear.  

They, the mods, need to update that pinned thread as it does not expressly state the story headline must be copied exactly, and the example linked is not clear either since the news story in the example is no longer available, so no one can tell if the headline matches the linked article.

 

It seems to be more of an unwritten rule.