Thursday 26 October 2017

H1B visa: Tighter verification process recommended for USCIS

Washington: The federal US agency that approves applications for the most sought-after H1B visas needs to improve upon its current site visit verification program so as to prevent fraud in the visa system, according to a report by the US department of homeland security.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which conducts site visits to companies that hire foreign workers on H1B visa as part of its objective to detect fraud, “could do more to prevent approving petitions for recurring violations and collaborate more with external stakeholders,” said the office of inspector general in its latest report released this week.
“The agency lacks performance measures to show how site visits contribute to improving the H1B Program,” the Inspector General said. Without addressing the challenges, USCIS site visits do not fully safeguard the H-1B Program, and the agency misses opportunities to ensure funds are put to better use through more robust site visits, the inspector general report said.
According to the report, USCIS can approve more than 330,000 H1B visa petitions each year and, as of April 2017, reported more than 680,000 approved and valid H-1B petitions. “USCIS conducts a limited number of visits and does not always ensure the officers are thorough and comprehensive in their approach,” the report said adding that further limiting the site visits’ effectiveness, USCIS does not always take proper action when immigration officers identify potential fraud or non-compliance.
It also uses targeted site visits to respond to indicators of fraud; however, the agency does not completely track the costs and analyze the results of these visits, the report said. As such the inspector general in its report recommends that USCIS deputy director, develop a process to collect and analyze complete and accurate data for all H-1B site visit activity.
It also asks USCIS to identify data and assessments obtained through site visit programs post adjudication and implement measures to systematically share this information with external stakeholders as appropriate. USCIS has also been recommended to develop comprehensive policies across Directorates to ensure adjudicative action is prioritised on fraudulent or non-compliant immigration benefits identified by the H-1B ASVVP (Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program) and targeted site visits.
Among other things, USCIS has also been asked to enhance the random sampling procedures to also include a more risk based approach that prioritises the recurring violators within the universe of H-1B holders and a random stratified selection of small. USCIS has accepted all recommendations.

Emails reveal Foreign Office alarm at Trump travel ban

The UK government wanted to set up an internal warning system to monitor and react to decisions made by President Donald Trump, emails show.
Officials did not want to be caught out by orders issued by the US president "just as London is going to sleep", one Foreign Office official said.
The emails reveal concerns about the impact of Mr Trump's travel ban on UK citizens and national security.
They were released to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act.
In one exchange, the Home Office's international director, Richard Clarke, discusses "potential UK activism/adverse reaction" in response to the travel ban, with officials at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism.
Also released was a heavily redacted analysis of the first three weeks of the Trump presidency, including a section entitled "Video killed the radio star".
Foreign Office email
The documents also reveal the EU contacted the Foreign Office to check whether Britain was attempting to get a special deal for its citizens in the aftermath of Mr Trump's travel ban.
Most of the emails released to the BBC were between the British Embassy in Washington and the Foreign Office around the time of Mr Trump's executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The order, signed on 27 January, was one of string of decrees, proclamations and orders issued by Mr Trump during his first weeks in the White House. It was signed hours after Prime Minister Theresa May became the first foreign leader to meet Mr Trump at the White House.
Foreign Office officials feared the ban would prevent thousands of UK citizens with dual nationality travelling to the United States and discussed the likely impact of that on relations between Mrs May and the new president.
Foreign Office email
"BE (British Embassy) Washington have been trying to get clarity from State (The State Department) without luck so far," officials said in an internal Foreign Office email dated 28 January - the day after Mr Trump signed the order.
"If true, this would obviously mean thousands of dual nationals with British passports being banned from travelling to the US. Not great after the PM visit."
Another email, on the same day, said: "The dual nationals angle will of course be really difficult for us. I'll come back to you when I have more on our response."
TrumpImage copyrightREUTERS
In the end, the new restrictions did not apply to British citizens with dual citizenship, but officials were keen not to be caught out again by the actions of President Trump.
On 30 January, Kara Owen, director of the Americas desk at the Foreign Office sent an email around the Foreign Office, including to the deputy British ambassador to the US Patrick Davies, asking for a new warning system to be set up to look at the impact of Mr Trump's executive orders on British interests.
"Many of these orders will no doubt be issued just as London is going to sleep," she said.
"I would like us to establish a system for assessing impact of the orders on U.K. interests (if any) and offering quick advice on what to do about it to the right readership (including senior readers in FCO and Whitehall, press and private offices)."
She added: "I would welcome any other predictions about EOs (executive orders) foreshadowed during the campaign and likely to touch on our interests - he is doing a lot of what he said he would."
Foreign Office email
The documents reveal civil servants expected a change in Theresa May's friendly outlook towards the US President should British citizens be banned from entering the United States.
"You might have seen that the PM didn't engage on the question on Trump's immigration policy saying they were for the US," said one official, referring to Mrs May's press conference in Turkey on 28 January, when she was questioned about the policy.
"Presumably that changes if Brits (ie dual nationals) are blocked from entering the US?," replied another official.
The document warned that questions on whether the government explicitly supported US immigration policy were a "bear trap".
The BBC's Diplomatic Editor James Landale said: "These emails show just how concerned the Foreign Office was about the flow of unexpected announcements emerging from the Trump White House and the potential impact on the UK.
"But we have to remember that this concern was also shared by other parts of the US administration that were at times equally blindsided by the President's early morning tweets.
"So the emails do not reflect any particular deterioration in UK-US relations. They illustrate the kind of steps foreign governments have had to consider to cope with Mr Trump's unpredictable style of government."
The emails also show Foreign Office also struggled with the weight of communications from MPs in the aftermath of the US President's executive order.
Foreign Office email
One official complained of "yet another UQ (Urgent Question to be answered in Parliament)", in reference to a question put by former SNP MP Stuart Donaldson requesting a statement on the impact on the ban on British citizens.
In addition, the emails revealed which journalists and public figures the FCO paid particular attention too,
Tweets from The Guardian's Anushka Asthana and Alan Travis, Steve Hawkes of The Sun and Jack Blanchard, then of The Mirror, were circulated with Foreign Office updates.

Review: Has BMW gets it right with 540i xDrive ??

My relationship with BMW’s cars is becoming increasingly like my high school crushes: I’m not sure if I like them because of what they are, or what I want them to be.
The BMW 540i xDrive sedan is a case in point. My default expectation of the 5-series remains that it’s “the ultimate driving machine,” the brilliant phrase that’s been BMW’s ad slogan since the 1970s. But while the latest 5-series is better in many significant ways, the improvements relate more to comfort and convenience than speed and maneuverability and the joy of driving a great machine.
Could it be that BMW has outgrown its focus on performance? Or that I’ve finally grown up?
Neither seems likely.
I tested a well-equipped 2017 540i xDrive with adaptive cruise control, a touch screen, navigation, wireless Apple CarPlay, M Sport trim, runflat tires, leather upholstery, power sunroof and more. It stickered at $81,635. The 5-series was new for 2017, and got minimal changes for 2018, so this review applies to both models.
The 540i xDrive uses a turbocharged 3-liter straight-six that produces 335 horsepower. The 540i xDrive accelerates to 60 miles per hour in 4.7 seconds, 0.7 second faster than the 2016 535i xDrive, and quicker than all the competitors that list zero-to-60 times.
Those competitors include the Acura TLX, Lexus GS 350 and Mercedes E400 4Matic.
The 540i xDrive’s EPA fuel economy is among the leaders in its class at 20 miles per hour in the city, 29 mpg highway and 23 mpg combined.
And it does it even though it has gotten slightly bigger. The 2017 and 2018 5-series is 1.1 inches longer than the previous generation, riding on a wheelbase that grew 0.2 inches. It’s slightly taller and wider, too.
That adds up to a roomy and comfortable passenger compartment with plenty of space in front and rear seats. BMW doesn’t provide its own interior measurements, but according to the EPA website, the 5-series passenger compartment is slightly smaller than the previous model, but still among the largest in the segment, trailing only the Genesis G80 and Infiniti Q70L. The trunk is also accommodating, with a wide and regular opening that makes it easy to load large objects.
After more than a decade when it seemed BMW’s iDrive rotary controller was the Devil’s Dial, created solely to infuriate drivers and amuse sadistic German engineers, the 5-series finally gets a quick and responsive touch screen and a few buttons. It’s now one of the most user-friendly controls in a luxury sedan.
BMW's 2016 7 series will feature gesture recognition to allow drivers to control its infotainment system with simple hand movements.
The 540i xDrive is about 137 pounds lighter than a comparable 2016 5-series, but still heavier than comparable versions of the larger CTS and Jaguar XF.
The 3-liter six-cylinder engine is smooth and powerful, but the car does not feel particularly nimble. It drives like a big car, in spite of strong acceleration.
While BMW has sanded down iDrive’s rough edges, its new gesture control remains a work in progress. Theoretically, it enables a driver to adjust volume and other functions simply by waving a hand, without ever actually touching a physical control.
It sounds nifty, but at this point isn’t much more than a parlor trick. I found gesture control slower and less precise than simply reaching for the dials and touch screen a few inches away.
Gesture control is particularly galling for people who talk with their hands. I  inadvertently muted the volume of several phone calls. I expect the same thing would happen to audio system volume if I were talking to a passenger.
BMW, which historically prized performance over mundane characteristics, blurs the line between luxury car and sport sedan with the 2018 BMW 540i xDrive. It’s quick and powerful, but also one of the roomiest and most comfortable sedans in its class. It’s also quick, powerful and fuel efficient, despite somehow feeling less sporty than earlier 5-series.
It may simultaneously ask and answer the question: “What does the ultimate driving machine become when it grows up?”

What Stands Out

Size: Bigger
Infotainment dial: Better
Gesture controls: Not ready for prime time

2017 BMW 540i xDrive

What? An all-wheel-drive luxury midsize sedan
When? On sale now
Where? Made in Dingolfing, Germany
How big? 16.2 feet long
What makes it go? A 3-liter twin-turbocharged six-cylinder engine good for 435 horsepower, coupled with an eight-speed automatic transmission.
How thirsty? 20 miles per gallon in the city, 29 mpg highway and 23 mpg combined
How much? Prices for the 2018 530i start at $52,400. The all-wheel-drive 540i xDrive begins at $60,000.
Overall? Now that BMW has worked out some kinks, a solid luxury sedan.

NBA responds to ex-commissioner David Stern's comments about marijuana

Former NBA commissioner David Stern, who ran the league from 1984-2014, made headlines Wednesday for his stance on marijuana and how he believes it "probably should be removed" from the league's banned substances list.
"I think all of the (sports) leagues are now appropriately focused on player training, structuring of the right parts of their body, player rehabilitation in the case of injury, player nutrition ... (marijuana) should be a part of that conversation," Stern told former NBA player Al Harrington in a documentary published by UNINTERRUPTED.
In the wake of Stern's comments, NBA executive vice president of communications Mike Bass told USA TODAY Sports' Jeff Zillgitt:
“While (current NBA) commissioner (Adam) Silver has said that we are interested in better understanding the safety and efficacy of medical marijuana, our position remains unchanged regarding the use by current NBA players of marijuana for recreational purposes.”
When the current collective bargaining agreement, which was agreed upon in December, was negotiated between players and the league, marijuana remained on the banned list, and removing it was not a focal point of discussions, two people with knowledge of the negotiations told USA TODAY Sports. They spoke under the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
The documentary, titled The Concept of Cannabis, follows Harrington's journey from NBA star to marijuana entrepreneur.
When Harrington raised the question regarding recreational marijuana use among players in states where it has been legalized, Stern said, "We've got to change the collective bargaining agreement and let you do what's legal in your state."
"I think it's up to the sports leagues to anticipate where this is going and maybe lead the way," he continued.
Stern added that, during his reign as commissioner, it was "generally known" that a lot of players smoked marijuana until the league tightened the rules.
"Some of our players came to us and said, 'some of these guys are high coming into the games.' We began tightening it up, and at that time, people accepted the generally held wisdom that marijuana was a gateway drug."
Now, Stern says, there's "a completely different perception."

Exclusive: Trump to declare public health emergency for opioids, a partial measure to fight drug epidemic

Exclusive: Trump to declare public health emergency for opioids, a partial measure to fight drug epidemic



WASHINGTON — President Trump will order his health secretary to declare the opioid crisis a public health emergency Thursday — but will stop short of declaring a more sweeping state of national emergency, aides said.
In an address from the White House, Trump will also try to rally the nation to a growing epidemic that claimed 64,000 American lives last year, and will advocate for a sustained national effort to end to the addiction crisis. 
"Drug demand and opioid misuse is the crisis next door," said Kellyanne Conway, a senior counselor to the president, previewing the tone of Trump's speech Wednesday. "This is no longer someone else's co-worker, someone else's community, someone else's kid. Drug use knows no geographic boundaries or demographic differences."
To respond to that crisis, Trump will sign a presidential memorandum ordering Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services Eric Hargan to waive regulations and give states more flexibility in how they use federal funds, said four senior officials responsible for crafting the administration's new opioid policy. The officials previewed the action to USA TODAY on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak ahead of the president's announcement. 
Trump first promised to declare a national emergency to combat the crisis on Aug. 10, and repeated that pledge last week. Speaking to reporters on the south lawn of the White House Wednesday, Trump touted a "big meeting" on opioids, and said a national emergency "gives us power to do things that you can't do right now."
More: FDA chief supports opioid prescription limits, regrets agency's prior inaction
More: Trump says he'll declare opioid crisis a national emergency. Here's what that could mean
More: As he chairs Trump's opioid commission, Christie champions his home-state drug companies
But there's a legal distinction between a public health emergency, which the secretary of Health can declare under the Public Health Services Act, and a presidential emergency under the Stafford Act or the National Emergencies Act.
The latter is what the president's own opioid commission recommended in July. Declaring a state of national emergency would give the president even more power to waive privacy laws and Medicaid regulations.
James Hodge, a law professor at Arizona State University, said a "dual declaration" — of emergencies by both the president and the Health secretary — would give the administration more tools to fight the epidemic, but that any emergency would be a welcome response to the crisis.
Trump's decision to go with a more measured response, a public health emergency, demonstrates the complexity of an opioid crisis that continues to grow through an ever-evolving cycle of addiction, from prescription pain pills to illegal heroin to the lethal fentanyl.
But the legal powers Trump is invoking were designed for a short-term emergencies like disasters and infectious diseases. 
By law, a public health emergency can only last for 90 days, but can be renewed any number of times. There are 13 localized public health emergencies already in effect for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and Nate, and the California wildfires. 
The opioid action would be the first public health emergency with a nationwide scope since a year-long emergency to prepare for the H1N1 influenza virus in 2009 and 2010.
Thursday's designation would give the administration specific powers to marshal federal, state and private resources. Those emergency powers would: 
► Allow patients to get medically-assisted treatment for opioid addiction through telemedicine. Current law generally requires in-person visits for doctors to prescribe controlled substances. But for people in rural areas like Appalachia — where the opioid crisis has taken a particularly heavy toll — qualified doctors can often be hours away.
► Give states the ability to shift federal grant funds from a wide range of public health issues: HIV, diabetes, maternal care — temporarily to opioid treatment programs. 
"I think our general feeling is, that's a good step, but it’s a temporary step, and it’s a transitional step," said Jim Blumenstock, chief of health security for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers. 
► Make Dislocated Worker Grants available to people with opioid addiction through the Department of Labor. Those grants are usually available to people put out of work by a natural disaster, but a public health emergency could also make those grants available to people in treatment. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta told the opioid commission last week that pain and addiction sideline millions of American workers: Of men aged 25-54 not in workforce, 44% had taken a painkiller in the last day, according to the Council of Economic Advisers.
► Tap the Public Health Emergency Fund, a special fund that gives HHS maximum flexibility in a health crisis.
However, that fund has just $57,000 in it, said Bill Hall, a deputy assistant secretary of Health. The city of Middletown, Ohio could spend almost twice that this year on naloxone alone. Naloxone is a drug that can instantly reverse the effects of an opioid overdose.
Administration officials said the broader national emergency declaration was unnecessary because the government can clear some hurdles through lower-level action.
The Department of Health and Human Services expects to issue guidance soon emphasizing that health care providers can communicate with the families of overdose victims situations without running afoul of health privacy laws. HHS has also approved waivers to some regulations in four states, giving them the flexibility that a national emergency could have provided.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who chairs the president's opioid commission, told USA TODAY that a public health emergency should put pressure on Congress to act.
"My view is that this action sends a clear signal from the president that he wants money appropriated into that fund," he said. "And it gives Congress a place to go with that money to give the administration some flexibility to use it to be able to use it to deal with some of the most pressing parts of it."
Christie's top priority: Getting naloxone into the hands of every first responder in the country. "That will bend the curve back in terms of lost lives," he said.
One administration official said there was no specific funding request that would accompany the emergency, and House and Senate appropriations committees said they hadn't had any discussions with the administration on it.

Worried Trump Will Strike North Korea, Democrats Pitch Bill To Slow Him Down

President Donald Trump’s increasingly tense relationship with Pyongyang has rattled members of Congress to such a degree that three Democratic senators announced a bill on Wednesday that would prohibit Trump from striking North Korea ― with nuclear or conventional weapons ― without obtaining congressional approval first.
Sen. Chis Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted a series of messages about the proposed legislation, which he is introducing with Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
″My bill ... makes clear that any unauthorized preemptive strike on N Korea - nuclear or conventional - is illegal,” Murphy wrote.



Mistake by Trump could kill hundreds of thousands on Korean Peninsula. My bill w @brianschatz @CoryBooker will clarify Trump's war powers.

For all the Republicans breaking w Trump, here is your chance to actually constrain his most dangerous power - to make war.
The bill follows legislation reintroduced by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in January that would limit the president’s ability to launch a first nuclear strike without a declaration of war from Congress.
“Trump’s North Korea threats are real,” Murphy wrote. “Mistake by Trump could kill hundreds of thousands on Korean Peninsula.”
The war of words between Pyongyang and Washington has continued to heat up in recent months, ahead of Trump’s visit to South Korea in November.
Earlier this month, North Korea’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Kim In Ryong, warned the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee that a nuclear war “may break out at any moment.” While such bluster is relatively normal for the country, equally destructive rhetoric from the White House has begun to rattle those at home and abroad.
Trump in September threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea and mocked leader Kim Jong Un as a “rocket man” on Twitter. 
Earlier this week, Japan’s Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told the U.S. and South Korea that the North Korean threat had grown to a “critical and imminent level,” according to Reuters, and he called on his counterparts to help rein in the antagonistic nation.
White House officials have kept the possibility of diplomacy open, even as the United Nations has imposted harsh sanctions on North Korea. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said earlier this month that America would be willing to negotiate with Pyongyang “until the first bomb drops.”
Trump is set to travel to South Korea on Nov. 7 as part of his trip across Asia, where he will “celebrate the enduring alliance and friendship” between Washington and Seoul. It’s unclear if Trump will visit the Korean Demilitarized Zone on his trip and scowl northward, as Vice President Mike Pence did earlier this year.

BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES
Vice President Mike Pence looks across to the north side of the border at the truce village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in Paju, South Korea, in April.