Hi,My name is Kanchana and the Law Offices of Rajiv Khanna have processed my LC through the PERM process. I must say that a great job was done by them especially Vijay Durgam and Pramita , in promptly following up with our paperwork and doing the needful. I got my LC Certified in sweeping 7 days from the date filed. Their knowledge in this field is commendable and I thank myself everyday that I chose to go with their law offices.My complete vote for them and I only hope the rest of the GC process goes just as smooth.
Great work guys, thanks once again.
My labor got cleared under PERM on February 7th,2006. I started the whole process in December 20th,2005 with Rajiv Khanna as my attorney. I’m very grateful to Rajiv S. Khanna and team for helping me with my labor certification. Their guidance helped me to get all my paperwork right. They make it a point to educate us about the laws and update us promptly about any changes in the DOL. This makes us feel comfortable and generates awareness of new policies under PERM.
In short Rajiv and his staff made the whole process very easy, simple and painless. We are really glad that we chose this Law firm. We are greatly pleased with Rajiv and his staff as far as their professionalism, courtesy and promptness regarding my Labor. Many of my friends went through Rajiv and all of them are also happy like me. We are thankful to Rajiv and his staff.
We represented a physician working for a veteran’s facility within a medically underserved area. The NIW was approved. Before completing her waiver time, she needed to move from the approved location to another location AND switch from a MUA to the Veterans Administration.
I was running out of time on my H1 B and had requested Rajiv Khanna's office for Quick filing and not only they filed my LC PERM on time but I also got my Approval in 4 days , All of my contacts (Suman ,Vijay ,Pramita,Anna Baker) at Rajiv Khanna's Office were very detail oriented and very helpful .I would like to specially thank Pramita for updating me with the case status ( at times on hourly basis ) when I felt unsure if I could make the deadline . Pramita and
Vijay took good care of my case and kept me updated with the status which is rare attribute which every cleint like me longs for . Rajiv Khanna Rocks !!!!
Mr Khanna , Mr Durgam , all other members of the office ..I would like to thank all of you for your hard work and dedication to get my labor certificate done and as a result we obtained approval in a very good time..with out going into details of how hard the process was . all I can say Thankyou. George
Mr. Khanna and his staff are very meticulous in preparing the case and the paperwork, and take the time to do it right. It paid off for my labour certification; I got my approval January 25, 2006.
USDOL had denied a series of cases for many employers represented by various law firms. The ground of denial was that when "engineering" was one of the acceptable majors for an IT job, that created too much ambiguity for a case to be approved. DOL stated that there are fields of engineering, such as Agricultural Engineering, which are clearly inapplicable to IT positions.
This ruling had become a nation wide issue.
The office of Rajiv S. Khanna is absolutely one of the best in the business. If you are looking for quality representation, look no further. This is your firm.
From the Labor Certification through the Green Card process, they were both polite and very professional. They would take time to patiently answer all my questions and address all my concerns.
My sincere thanks and gratitude to all of you especially Jitesh, Shivane, Prerna, Matthew and Subha.
You guys are touching the lives of thousands of people in this country. Keep up the good work.
For ever grateful,
The PERM Processing Times has been updated. Please click the link below to view the times.
http://www.immigration.com/PERM-processing-dates/perm-processing-times-11062013
Its amazing that such a big firm and so many clients, still I got Individual Attention, including once scanning and sending me 32 Pages of Documents I had submitted with my Labor Applications that I had misplaced.Special Thanks to Richa, Prerna, Shivani ,Mathew Rajiv Khanna and Immigration Portal for so much info.
One of the ways a foreign national (alien) can become a permanent resident is through a permanent employment opportunity in the United States. There are five employment-based preference categories.
Analyst Reviews : August 2 2012
Audits : February 29 2012
Reconsideration Requests to the CO : December 1 , 2011
Gov't Error Reconsiderations : Current
We filed a PERM application under EB-2 for a Senior Programmer Analyst’s position early this year. Three months later, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an Audit Notification. Immediately following our response, DOL denied the application, citing that our audit response did not include a copy of the job order.
Who is considered a qualified U.S. worker for purposes of a Labor Certification?
For purposes of a Labor Certification, a qualified U.S. worker is defined as a U.S. citizen, a U.S. Legal Permanent Resident (Green Card holder), or other specially authorized alien (such as an asylee or refugee) who satisfies the minimum job requirements and is willing to take the position under the conditions and terms described in the Labor Certification application.
The processing of supervised recruitment cases is still extremely slow. Cases filed directly into supervised recruitment in January and February 2012 have still not received the initial communication from DOL or any recruitment instructions. Based on reports, it appears that DOL is not following FIFO (first in, first out)on SR cases, as there are SR cases with priority dates ranging from May 2011 to October 2011, and draft ads/ad corrections have been submitted as early as February 2012 and as late as July 2012. Has DOL provided details on SR processing dates and times?
DOL indicates that it expects to see a significant increase in the speed of processing of SR cases as well as cases under audit. Staff members who normally work on SR cases were temporarily reassigned to identify and process “straggler” cases. That project has been completed as of October 1, 2012, and DOL has moved those staff members back to their normal work. This should result in much faster processing of both SR and audit cases.
DOL has indicated that it would make sense to consolidate recruitment for Supervised Recruitment (SR) cases that are identical. Has DOL made any progress on publishing a standard that can be followed to consolidate recruitment for SR?
DOL has indicated that it is generally not opposed to consolidation of recruitment efforts in appropriate cases, and a request can be made to the SR processing e-mail box for consolidation. Even where cases are consolidated for recruitment, however, DOL will still require individual recruitment reports for each SR application.
Several newspapers (Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, etc.) place their online ads on Monster.com. When the SR instructions direct the placement of an ad on these newspaper websites AND on Monster.com, this means placement of the same listing twice on the same website, which is redundant. Has DOL indicated that a single advertisement on Monster.com is sufficient when the required newspaper uses Monster.com to place job advertisements online?
DOL has suggested e-mailing the SR e-mail address for clarification on particular recruitment instructions. Note, however, that the employer should still follow the recruitment instructions. The focus is whether a full labor market test was conducted that provides U.S. workers with opportunity to apply for the position. DOL is not intentionally seeking duplicate ads.
Employers may choose to withdraw cases undergoing SR for many reasons, such as the employee terminating his employment, the employee obtaining a green card through other means (such as marriage), or the costs of the required recruitment. In determining any employer-wide consequences of withdrawal during the SR process, does DOL consider the explanation as to why the SR case is being withdrawn? How can an employer best provide an explanation why the SR case is being withdrawn?
DOL indicates that it does not monitor or track particular reasons for withdrawal. DOL does, however, pay attention to the rate of withdrawal both for individual employers and overall. The withdrawal rate has decreased, but at one point was more than 10%. Such a high rate of withdrawal caused DOL concern.
Several people have reported receiving two certifications of the same PERM application, with different validity dates. In most (but not all) of these cases, when the case was first approved, no hard copy ETA 9089 was received by the attorney in the mail. When the case was “recertified,” a hard copy 9089 was generated. Has DOL identified what caused these duplicate approvals? Has DOL also communicated this problem to USCIS, as this could impact processing of an I-140 petition that was filed with a request that USCIS contact DOL to obtain a “duplicate” certification?
DOL indicates that there has been at least one case where the I-140 was approved by USCIS despite issuance of a “duplicate” certification with different dates. In that case, the DOL and USCIS were advised of the duplicate certification issue prior to the I-140 being approved.
According to DOL updates as of 11/5/2012, they are working on PERM
Applicants often have difficulty getting a response from the various email help desks (sr.processing@dol.gov, plc.atlanta@dol.gov, etc.) beyond a boilerplate acknowledgement of the inquiry. This lack of substantive response can be particularly challenging when an employer is trying to create a new PERM filing account, or if the employer’s contact is locked out of their online PERM account. Has DOL provided any details on how e-mail inquiries are handled by each of the help desks? Does DOL have required service response times? Would it be possible for a dedicated e-mail to be created to follow-up on specific matters, such as PERM account registration problems? As an example, USCIS has a dedicated follow-up e-mail for service requests, but this e-mail can only be used after a service request is made, and after a set period of time goes by without a response.
DOL indicates that it has completed its project to address “straggler” cases and has returned staff to normal job duties. This may help to improve timeliness of responses from DOL on these kinds of issues.
Recently, DOL has begun to issue audits with the following language: “The foreign worker listed on the ETA 9089 resides in [residence location], section H of the 9089 provides [work location] as the worksite. Has DOL explained how the foreign worker performs the job duties of the job opportunity given the distance between [residence location] and [work location].Is the employee permitted and/or expected to perform the duties of the job opportunity listed on ETA 9089 from his residence and/or his place of choosing?” In many cases, the two locations are quite close and are clearly within a normal commuting distance (e.g. Atlanta and Marietta,
Georgia – distance approximately 20 miles; Palisades Park and Parsippany, New Jersey – distance approximately 30 miles). In one case, the work and residence locations were less than two miles apart. Has DOL considered conducting an initial review of the distance between the residence location and work location before issuing the audit?
DOL indicates that this kind of question on an audit where the work location and residence location are close together is likely a training issue. DOL does, however, believe that it is appropriate to inquire about this kind of issue where it is unclear why the residential address and the work address are far apart from one another, and does issue audits on that basis where appropriate.
Applicants have reported frequent rejections of alternate wage surveys that have been submitted to the prevailing wage unit in support of the ETA 9141. Several of these rejections have not been due to a specific deficiency of the survey or because the survey was not a match to the position, but because not all leveling information was submitted, or because the submitted survey data was incomplete. Rather than rejecting the survey due to missing survey information, could the National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) instead issue a request for the missing information, so that employers are able to correct the problem, rather than have to submit a new wage request and wait two months for a decision?
DOL indicates that it does issue a Request for Information when possible, but relies on employers and attorneys to provide complete information regarding alternate wage surveys to allow the wage determination to be based upon that survey.
Rather than requiring that the full survey methodology be submitted with every prevailing wage request, can DOL recognize that certain surveys (i.e., Towers Watson, Radford, CHIPS One) employ a statistically valid methodology, and only require documentation that supports the specific wage request, such as the wage, level, location, and job description for the requested job opportunity?
DOL indicates that methodology can change within a survey among different occupations, so it is necessary for DOL to receive full survey methodology with each prevailing wage request, even for a commonly used alternate wage survey.
Labor Approved from California in about 35 Months.
It was a long journey, I have to thank Mr Vijay Durgam my case manager who was very helpful and for answering all my questions in timely fashion and professionally. All the paper was done with utmost care. Special Thanks goes to Mr Rajiv Khanna who has given a Dynamic twist to my Labor Application which is in a verge of sinking. I am very happy and proud to choose his Law Firm for my PR. I strongly recommend his law firm.
Thanks for the whole Team for doing a Great Job.. Keep up the good work