起诉H1B电子抽签abuse的官司输了，一人多抽合法

寄。选票大于一切。h1b这几万人又没什么政治利益，爱咋咋地

懂了，利好Day 1 CPT （微笑

之前用工资限制的时候，一堆人认为自己吃亏了来反对。

这下看看，亏是不是吃得更大了？

只有川普才是干实事的，好不容易弄点工资限制抽签把H1B稍微优化一下，还被rollback了。

sly1061101 发表于 2022-3-2 11:36
我们的目的就是让多抽变得和单抽一样，不能提升中签率，这样就能打击ICC给abuser注册多份的积极性。对拥 ...

懂了 看来法官不任何你们的解决方案，如果还想尝试的话，就只能更改方案重新诉讼了，新方案必须能有效identify真正的abuser，而不是把多抽一棍子打死

贴个能直接看opinion的链接
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60020835/58/liu-v-mayorkas/

法庭的这段说理让我认为，如果USCIS以后改成一人一抽反而更容易被起诉违反INA

The Registration Rule aligns with each of these requirements. The Rule does not allow more than 65,000 visas (85,000 with the exempt visas included), so it complies with § 1184(g)(1). The Applicants do not argue that the Rule allows USCIS to issue visas in any order other than the order in which it receives petitions. Nor could they, because all the Registration Rule does is require prospective employers to file a registration as a first step in the process. A registration is not a petition. The Registration Rule is “simply an antecedent procedural step to be eligible to file an H-1B cap petition.” ... So the Rule does not violate § 1184(g)(3). And the Rule does not violate § 1184(g)(7) because it makes no provision for USCIS to count an alien more than once against the H-1B cap.

True, more than one prospective employer may file a registration on behalf of a foreign national. But § 1184(g)(7)’s reference to “multiple petitions” already allows multiple employers to file petitions on behalf of the same alien. Indeed, in response to public comments, USCIS has long recognized that multiple petitions might exist for a single foreign national... And the Applicants admit the INA allows this...

Consider also that if an alien could have only one employer file a registration on his behalf, that would conflict with § 1184(g)(7). Such a rule would effectively bar any scenario where an alien could have more than one petition approved for him. Section 1184(g)(7) would become meaningless. That is why the Registration Rule allows for multiple registrations. And it adheres to the INA, because “one alien, one registration” is not in the statutory language. What matters is that USCIS only issued one visa to each alien before the Registration Rule, and it only issues one visa to each alien now.
Because the INA is clear, the Court need not move to Chevron step two. And because the Registration Rule does not violate the INA, it is not ultra vires.

amayazhou 发表于 2022-3-2 18:19
打不过就加入，如果icc抽中了，9月30号从原公司辞职？10月1号入职并生效，11月就可以transfer走么？

首先这么干的大部分都是境外抽签的人，无所谓哪家公司给他抽中。如果是境内cos我听一个烙印说不一定对，就是按照你说的这种，10月入职给他抽中的公司（也确实能给他找到client先干着），然后想走的时候交赎身费走人；或者赌一把在抽中签批准后10.1前再提交一个transfer，但有可能会被uscis拒，因为理论上工签还没生效。anyway，这其实都是abuse

iPhD 发表于 2022-03-02 11:19:25
问题是，USCIS没有去改进这个系统的动力，他们只在乎把85K名额分配出去，申请费收足了就够了，具体名额分给谁，对他们来说其实不重要。

很可悲的事实而已，USCIS不在乎公平与否。

是这个道理，发给谁对uscis都一样，苦的只有我们这些老老实实的打工人

eveliu11 发表于 2022-03-02 12:31:42
首先这么干的大部分都是境外抽签的人，无所谓哪家公司给他抽中。如果是境内cos我听一个烙印说不一定对，就是按照你说的这种，10月入职给他抽中的公司（也确实能给他找到client先干着），然后想走的时候交

这个abuse是真 灰色地带…抽中的那些人可以装模作样工作一两个月然后就能跑了，但这在uscis眼里肯定算valid job offer

应该用技术解决这个问题。把整个数据开放，做个脚本，把同一个人抽了多少次的数据排序出来。一个人多个offer合理，这个没问题。但是多少个offer算合理呢。我自己2017年抽签，确实有两家公司都给了我offer，都帮我抽签了。我自己觉得已经是能力的极限了。那再牛逼的一个人3个offer也是极限了吧。一个人12个offer这是显著违背常识的吧。
而且数字公开也有助于大家自觉，起到deterence的作用。

还有何办法？可以再上诉DC circuit么？