Subject: CND-US, Dec. 14, 1991

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 12:20:31 -0500

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   C h i n a   N e w s   D i g e s t  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                               (US Regional)

                        Saturday, December 14, 1991

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| CND-US, normally 1 or 2 issues a week, is a supplement to CND-Global and |
| has  basically no overlap with the daily news.  CND-US provides in-depth |
| information concerning Chinese students/scholars in the United States.   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Table of Contents                                                # of Lines

1. News Brief (3 Items) .................................................40
2. Be Aware: Aftershocks of Iowa Tragedy (2 Items) ......................90
3. NAFSA Update #161: More About H-1B and O-1 ..........................380
4. Job Opportunities for Programmer/Analyst ..............................8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. News Brief (3 Items) .................................................40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHICAGO, Dec. 13, PRNewswire -- A new air freight  connection  between  the
U.S.  Midwest  and  China  will  open  Dec.  20 with the beginning of China
Eastern Airlines (CEA) all-cargo service between Chicago and Shanghai.

The operation will use the world's newest cargo aircraft,  CEA's  freighter
version  of  the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 wide-cabin trijet, which can carry
up to 92 tons of payload.  This link will start with one flight weekly. The
aircraft  will arrive at O'Hare International Airport at 6 p.m. on Fridays,
off-load inbound cargo and load outbound cargo for departure  scheduled  at
11:20 p.m.

CEA and the PRC government are negotiating for additional landing rights in
the US to allow more frequent service in the future. Based in Shanghai, CEA
is the second PRC carrier authorized  to  operate  between  China  and  the
United  States.  The  airline  began passenger service from Shanghai to Los
Angeles in August, with flights on Tuesdays and Fridays each week, using  a
new MD-11 passenger aircraft. (Huijie)
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Washington, BNA Int. Trade Daily, 12/11 -- The office of US Trade Represen-
tative C.A. Hills was so flooded with responses to an invitation to comment
on possible Special 301 trade sanctions  against China  that it scheduled a
public hearing without waiting for one to be requested,a staff member said.

The hearing is scheduled for Jan. 6 and 7 at the International  Trade  Com-
mission  at  500  E St. SW, the staff member said. A panel composed of USTR
staff members and representatives of other government  agencies  will  here
testimony  from  anyone  who wishes to speak, the staff members said. David
Weiss, director of the trade policy subcommittee at USTR,  will  chair  the
panel. The deadline for submitting rebuttals to the public hearing is 1/13,
according to the announcement.  The hearings follow a 30-day comment period
on how possible such trade sanctions would affect  businesses & individuals
in the US. USTR staff members have said that sanctions could be imposed  as
early as mid-January. <[email-masked]>, 12/12

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Utah State University,  Dec. 14, 1991 --  Here, in USU,  a Chinese  student
who is believed came from PRC,was killed last night. The name of the victim
is Chen Hao, a student major in computer science in Utah State  University.
Investigation is still going on.  According to a official speaker, Chen was
killed by a black teenager who tried to rape him (quoted from original mesg
-- the editor).    For further information, send e-mail to <[email-masked]>.
(From: Meng Gongzi, [email-masked])

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Be Aware: Aftershocks of Iowa Tragedy (2 Items) ......................90
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I) From: Jeremiah Cetlin Wilton, <[email-masked]>

Mr. Wilton, an International Studies student at  Earlham  College,  forwar-
deded an article of Larry Eubank,  to news groups soc.culture.arabic/china/
japan etc., for their attention.

The following is the text of the article in Thursday,  Dec. 12 Indianapolis
Star.  Page A-15:

I have read accounts of Gang Lu, the Chinese graduate who went on a rampage
and  killed  several  people  at  the  University  of  Iowa.  His grievance
apparently was that he was not granted honors for his dissertation.

I am not surprised by the latter. That  is  entirely  in  keeping  with  my
experience of Chinese and other Oriental students in particular and foreign
students in general at Indiana Universiity in Bloomington. They  all  think
they deserve prizes.

I was graduated from I.U. in 1980 with a bachelor's degree in computer sci-
ence,  and  I recently started work on a master's. From my perspective, one
of the most apparent changes is that now the computer science department (I
can't  speak  for  the  other  departments)  apperars  to be well over half
foreign students, primarily, I suppose, Oriental and Arab.

I think that the whole attitude of the foreign students is one  of  animos-
ity, cliquishness and invidious comparisons, combined with disdain of Amer-
ican Students.

Foreign students tend  to  congregate  into  cliques,  speaking  their  own
language  except  when  addressing Americans; then they return to their own
group, discussing what was said among themselves and laughing about it.

American Students are often subordinated to the role of foreign students in
that the latter make up a large portion of the instructors, research assis-
tants and other apprentice workers employed by the university.

In the computer science department, the foreign students seem to think they
are  the elite and were brought over here to teach the stupid americans how
to do things. Even those who are far from gifted seem to acquire this atti-
tude.

It is not so much the foreign studets' numbers that are  the  problem,  but
arrogance,  a  mode of contemptuous, insolent behavior toward American stu-
dents. They delight in ordering Americans around and and issuing peremptory
demands  of  them.  It  is  disconcerting  to  be treated as a second class
citizen in one's own country by foreigners.

We are bestowing benefits on foreign students,  giving  them  a  subsidized
education  at  the  expense of American taxpayers so they can repay us with
contempt.

Foreign students have turned the educational experience at I.U. into a dis-
tinctly   unpleasant   one  for  American  students,  poisoning  the  whole
educational atmosphere.

There is no longer the atmosphere of camaraderie  and  the  spirit  of  all
learning together that I used to see to a significant extent among computer
science students. Rather, the prevailing atmosphere is one of malice, head-
long ambition and contempt directed against the "dumb" Americans.

Moreover, we are training competitors from places such as  communist  China
in technologically sensitive fields of computer science and engineering.

The university's administration is no doubt caught in a  money  crunch,  as
are  most  universities. But their money grubbing policies are spoiling the
university experience for those for whom it is supposed the university  was
established -- our own country's young citizens.

No doubt much is to be said for being nice, liberal and sharing our largess
with  other  peoples  and  all that. But there's also such a thing as being
made a sap of. The caretakers of the academic ghetto are  the  last  people
who  are capable of judging when they are being taken for suckers. It is up
to the citizenry at large to protest the administration's policies  and  to
preserve our universities as places for the education of our own students.

II)--- --- --- --- --- ---

The following is excerpted from AEIC Information Package #8, 11/24:
([email-masked])

A student in U of IOWA wrote an article, implicitly generalizing Lu  Gang's
behavor  to Chinese race as a whole. International students there protested
promptly. Recently a local newspaper in a Medical School in Georgia carried
a reader's mail and its reply:

Hey ***:

I am an American-born grad student here on campus (the last one I think). I
think  the  Chinese  grad student in the lab has been giving me threatening
looks ever since we both nominated for the same award. He's taken up target
practice  and  has  started compiling a list of newspapers and TV stations.
Should I be worried?

Dear ***:

If I were you, I'd back out of the award contention immediately.  Be  very,
very  nice to your Chinese colleague and let him know that you'd be glad to
share any of your other academic honors, publications, and data with him.

The response from local CSS community was still unknown at this moment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NAFSA Update #161: More About H-1B and O-1 ..........................380
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Amy Yenkin,Lisa Jacobson Treacy, NAFSA Central Office, 12/13
From:   Bo Xiong, 12/13

1. DOL ACCEPTING COMMENTS ON LABOR CONDITION APPLICATION PROCEDURES

As you already know, the Department of Labor  (DOL)  issued  interim  final
regulations  implementing  the  new  H-1B  labor attestation requirement on
October 22,  1991  and  will  accept  comments  until  December  23.   More
recently,  however,  Congress  passed  HR  3049, a bill which significantly
modifies the attestation procedure. This  legislation  was  signed  by  the
President yesterday evening.

Because the new law mandates that DOL have final or interim  final  regula-
tions  for  the  H-1B  changes in effect by January 2, 1992 and the comment
period for the  interim  final  rule  ends  December  23,  1991,  NAFSA  is
encouraging  members to comment on both procedures at the same time. A sum-
mary of the labor attestation requirements  as  modified  by  HR  3049  and
suggestions for issues needing clarification follows.

A. Filing of the Labor Condition Application (Form ETA-9035):

Both the interim final rule and the new law  address  the  general  concern
that  DOL  will  not  be  able to expeditiously process the Labor Condition
Application (LCA) which will result in lengthy delays for employers wishing
to hire H-1B aliens. In an effort to streamline the process, DOL has stated
in the preamble to the interim final rule that "approval" will  be  limited
to  checking  that  the LCA is complete and that the Wage and Hour Division
has not previously disqualified  the  employer  from  hiring  H-1B  aliens.
Further,  the  rule  notes  that DOL intends to accomplish this immediately
upon receipt and in no case later than thirty days  after  receipt  of  the
LCA. DOL notes, however, that this time limit "is only a target."

HR 3049 modifies the DOL review in two significant ways.  First, it removes
the  requirement that the LCA be approved by the Secretary of Labor; DOL is
only obligated to determine and certify to the Attorney  General  that  the
LCA  has  been  filed.   Secondly it mandates that the LCA be reviewed only
"for completeness and obvious inaccuracies" and that certification will  be
provided within 7 days of the date of filing.

Because DOL offices are likely to face large backlogs of  LCAs  once  those
employers that had refrained from filing under the October 22 rule begin to
file, NAFSA is concerned that this 7 day turn  around  is,  at  least  ini-
tially, unrealistic. Therefore, NAFSA plans to suggest that the ETA 9035 be
filed with DOL and the I-129 be filed with INS  simultaneously.  DOL  would
then  certify  receipt  of  the application directly to INS (a very literal
interpretation of the statutory language) within 7 days.   If,  eventually,
the  LCA  is  not approved, the alien should be allowed to continue to work
while the employer corrects and resubmits  the  application.   Applications
that  are  not  processed  within  this  time frame should be considered as
approved, thus allowing INS to begin processing the H-1B petition.

B. Determination of Wage Levels:

HR 3049 makes a number of  changes  to  the  wage  attestation  procedures.
First,  it  removes the requirement that similarly situated U.S. workers be
paid the same as H-1Bs; employers are obligated to pay  the  required  wage
only  to "aliens admitted or provided status as a nonimmigrant described in
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)."  Second, the new law defines actual  wage  as
that "paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience
and qualifications for the specific employment  in  question."  Under  this
definition,  employers can make finer distinctions among similarly situated
workers and thus retain control over salary  determinations.  Thirdly,  the
new  law  specifies that wage determinations be "based on the best informa-
tion available as of the time of filing  the  application,"  and  does  not
specify a particular methodology or State Employment Security Agency (SESA)
survey for prevailing wage determinations.  In addition,  the  preamble  to
the  interim  final  rule  states that if the employer obtains a prevailing
wage determination from the SESA, DOL will accept that as "correct and will
not question its validity."

Because DOL has shown clearly that it  has  little  idea  of  how  academic
salary  decisions  are  made,  commenters may wish to focus on criteria for
determining actual and prevailing wage. Examples of how ability,  education
and  specialized  knowledge are used to calculate actual wage levels within
the same job classification and how informal surveys of comparable  depart-
ments at other institutions are used to determine prevailing wages would be
helpful.

In addition, commenters may wish to call attention to the need to determine
prevailing  wage  levels  based on surveys of similar institutions in demo-
graphically comparable areas of employment regardless of whether  employers
are  within  normal commuting distance or the same metropolitan statistical
area (MSA) as currently specified in the interim final rule.  Again,  exam-
ples  from  schools  in  the same MSA but with very different salary scales
would be helpful.

Moreover,  NAFSA  plans  to  suggest  that   should   a   prevailing   wage
determination not be available from DOL in a timely fashion (i.e. within 30
days), the employer should be allowed to rely on the "best  information  as
of  the  time of filing." Since complaints are likely to be filed within or
shortly after the 10 days required for posting of notice of filing the LCA,
DOL could make a reasonable prevailing wage determination after a complaint
had been filed. This would comply with DOL' stated intention that  the  LCA
process be complaint driven.

One area of concern for NAFSA members not addressed by the new law  is  how
to  determine the required wage level for H-1Bs in the case of funding from
a third party. Because the interim final rule does not  require  that  H-1B
employees  be  paid  in U.S.  currency, NAFSA plans to request that this be
interpreted to mean that in cases of funding from a third  party  (such  as
sabbatical  salary)  the  employer  need only confirm that the total salary
meet the LCA wage requirement.

C. Other Labor Condition Application  Requirements  -  Working  Conditions,
Posting of Notice, Public Inspection:

DOL 's rule notes that working conditions commonly refer to "hours, shifts,
vacation  periods and fringe benefits." Commenters may wish to clarify that
like prevailing wages, working conditions should be based on similar insti-
tutions  in  demographically comparable areas of employment. Specific exam-
ples of how and why the commenter's institution is unlike another  institu-
tion  of higher learning within the area of intended employment in terms of
working conditions would be useful.

The interim final regulations specify that if a  bargaining  representative
does  not exist, the employer must post a notice at the place of employment
in at least two "conspicuous locations" for ten  days  informing  employees
that  a  labor  condition application is filed.  Although the interim final
rule specifies that the notice must indicate the  number  of  H-1B  workers
that  are  sought  and  their occupational classifications, the wages to be
offered to the workers, the period(s) and location(s)  of  employment,  and
the  availability of the labor condition application for public inspection,
neither IMMACT 90 nor HR 3049 contain such requirements.  Therefore,  NAFSA
plans  to  suggest that employers may meet the notice requirement by simply
posting a statement that the LCA is filed, that the LCA  is  available  for
inspection,  and  that  complaints  alleging  misrepresentation of material
facts in the LCA and/or failure to comply with the terms of the LCA may  be
lodged with the Wage and Hour Division.

Further, HR 3049 provides that the copy of the  LCA  available  for  public
inspection  include such "accompanying documents as necessary."  Commenters
may wish to point out that this documentation should  not  include  payroll
records  or other detailed information that may have been used to determine
the wage level (as stated in the interim final rule, these  documents  need
only be available to DOL within one day upon investigation of a complaint).
This would alleviate concerns about  violations  of  privacy  in  terms  of
salary information being made public.

D. Procedures for Complaints and Investigations:

Implementing the language from IMMACT 90, the  interim  final  rule  stated
that  employers found violating any portion of the LCA would be barred from
employing immigrant or nonimmigrant aliens for a  period  of  one  year  or
more.   HR  3049,  however, successfully eliminates this "death penalty" by
mandating that only when the Secretary of Labor finds a "wilful failure" to
meet  a wage condition or a misrepresentation of material fact in an appli-
cation shall the employer be barred from filing petitions for  alien  work-
ers. NAFSA members may want to specify that a wilful failure should be lim-
ited to those violations deliberately committed with intent to undercut the
wages of U.S. workers.

HOW TO COMMENT:

Comment letters are your opportunity to raise the points  noted  above  and
any other issues concerning the LCA.  Keep in mind that each comment letter
counts -- the more frequently school officials raise the same concerns, the
more  likely  DOL  is  to  modify favorably its regulations before they are
issued in final form.

Although comments on the interim final rule are not due until December  23,
1991,  NAFSA  suggests that you give DOL an early Christmas present and get
them there as soon as possible. The earlier  DOL  receives  comments  espe-
cially  on  provisions  of the new law the better chance there is that some
kind of rule will take effect  on  January  2,  1992.  COmments  should  be
addressed to:

     Roberts T. Jones
     Assistant Secretary
     Employment and Training Administration
     U.S. Department of Labor
     200 Constitution Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC  20210
     Attention: Immigration Task Force, Room N-4470

While it is important to let DOL know what you  think  about  the  proposed
rule,  it  is  equally important to inform your members of Congress on your
views.  You may wish to copy your Senators  or  Representatives  with  your
letter to DOL.

Finally, to assist NAFSA in its work on this issue, please forward  a  copy
of your letter(s) to Lisa Jacobson Treacy at the NAFSA Central Office, 1875
Connecticut Avenue, N.W.  Suite 1000, Washington, DC  20009-5728.   If  you
have  questions,  contact  your  Government  Regulations Advisory Committee
regional representative or NAFSA central. NAFSA is grateful for  your  help
on  this  important  advocacy  issue and welcomes your comments and sugges-
tions.

2.  SUMMARY OF INS REGULATIONS FOR H AND O NONIMMIGRANTS

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) published a final rule for
H, L, O, and P temporary alien workers in the Federal Register on December,
2, 1991 (pp. 61111-61137).  The regulations implement changes made  by  the
Immigration  Act  of  1990  (IMMACT  90) and are effective retroactively to
October 1, 1991.  The rule also implements certain provisions of the  Armed
Forces  Immigration  Adjustment  Act of 1991 which became law on October 1,
1991 and, among other things, delayed implementation of the O and  P  visas
for artists, athletes, entertainers and fashion models until April 1, 1992.
The final rule does not include statutory changes to the H-1B visa category
incorporated  into  HR  3049, the Judicial Naturalization Act, which passed
Congress on November 26 and was signed by the  President  on  December  12.
Major provisions of the INS regulations are summarized below.

H-1B ALIENS IN A SPECIALTY OCCUPATION

IMMACT 90 redefines the H-1B category by removing the prominent alien stan-
dard and replacing it with the "specialty occupation" concept, places a cap
of 65,000 on the number of H-1B workers admitted each  year,  and  requires
that employers file a labor condition application (LCA) with the Department
of Labor (DOL) documenting wages and working conditions.   Other  statutory
changes  to  the  H-1B category include an extension of the maximum stay in
the United States from five to six years, the codification into law of  the
"dual  intent"  concept  for  H-1B  applicants  and  the  requirement  that
employers cover the "reasonable costs" of return transportation  abroad  if
the  H-1B  worker  is  dismissed before the end of the authorized period of
stay.

In our comment letter to the Service, NAFSA suggested that INS modify  this
portion  of the regulations so that employers were not held responsible for
the cost of return travel if the alien was dismissed because  of  poor  job
performance.  Instead, employer responsibility should be limited to dismis-
sal due to the loss of grant funding for a project, or other  circumstances
beyond the control of the H-1B worker.

While INS expanded and clarified this provision in the final rule, the Ser-
vice  did  not  explicitly respond to this portion of our comments.  In the
preamble, INS states that this process will be complaint driven.   However,
while there is no penalty for those employers who fail to comply, INS notes
that the fact of noncompliance may be  considered  in  adjudicating  future
nonimmigrant  visa petitions. In the body of the rule itself, INS specifies
that it is not considered dismissal  if  an  alien  voluntarily  terminates
employment  prior  to  the  expiration of the validity of the petition, and
that "abroad" refers to the alien's last place  of  foreign  residence.  In
addition,  the  rule  states that the return costs provision applies to any
employer whose offer of employment became the basis for an alien  obtaining
H-1B status.

The INS regulations state that all petitions (even emergent cases) must  be
filed with a regional service center, and that H, O, and P petitions may be
filed up to six months in advance. INS plans to use a new form, the  I-129,
for  all  H, L, O, and P petitions.  This form, currently awaiting approval
by the Office of Management and Budget, combines several  requests  on  one
document,  including  a  new  procedure to extend the underlying visa. This
procedure will allow aliens to travel  abroad  on  short  notice  while  an
application for extension of stay is pending.

IMMACT 90 removed prior restrictions on foreign medical graduates regarding
direct  patient  care, allowing for physicians to obtain H-1B status. Peti-
tions for H physicians must, however, be accompanied by an  ECFMG  certifi-
cate or evidence of exemption therefrom, as well as evidence that the alien
is authorized by  the  state  of  intended  employment  to  perform  duties
described in the petition.

INS has also clarified in the final rule that  only  H-1B  principals  (not
extensions  of stay) will be counted toward the 65,000 cap. INS has decided
to assign a number when a petition is approved even if the beneficiary  was
previously  accorded  H-1B status in the same fiscal year. Any unused visas
will be credited to the total.

Finally, employers wishing to substitute aliens must file new  I-129  peti-
tions.  INS  suggests that LCAs be filed for multiple unnamed beneficiaries
when all the beneficiaries of an LCA have not been identified.

O-1 ALIENS OF EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY IN THE SCIENCES, EDUCATION OR BUSINESS

The Immigration Act of 1990 divided the new O visa category into  two  sub-
categories  for  aliens of extraordinary achievement in motion pictures and
television production, and for aliens of extraordinary ability in the  sci-
ences, arts, education, business, and athletics.  Colleges and universities
would be more likely to use the O-1 subcategory for aliens of extraordinary
ability than the subcategory for aliens of extraordinary achievement.  How-
ever, the evidentiary requirements are  so  high  that  most  colleges  and
universities will have little use for this new category.

IMMACT 90 requires O-1 aliens to be persons of "extraordinary ability"  and
defines this as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one
of a small percentage who have risen to  the  very  top  of  the  field  of
endeavor." To implement this language, INS requires that applicants for the
O- 1 visa demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim."

The INS regulations require employers to submit evidence of  receipt  of  a
major  internationally  recognized  award (such as the Nobel Prize) or evi-
dence of at least three of the following:  (1)  receipt  of  nationally  or
internationally recognized awards or prizes; (2) membership in associations
requiring outstanding achievement of their members; (3) published  material
about the alien in professional or major trade publications; (4) participa-
tion on a panel as a judge of others in the  field;  (5)  major  scholarly,
artistic, or scientific contributions by the alien; (6) authorship of scho-
larly articles; (7) that the alien has been employed in a critical capacity
for  organizations that have a distinguished reputation; (8) that the alien
has received a high salary or other high renumeration for services; or  (9)
if the above standards do not readily apply, comparable evidence.

IMMACT 90 also requires INS to determine that  the  admission  of  the  O-1
alien  will  prospectively benefit the U.S. In the final rule, however, INS
states that since O-1 aliens possess the highest calibre of talent in their
fields,  they  will  necessarily  benefit the U.S. and are thus exempt from
this standard.

Under the proposed INS regulations, if an O-1 alien worked  for  more  than
one  employer  within the same time period, each employer would be required
to file a petition with the Service.  NAFSA commented to the  Service  that
this  requirement posed a special problem for colleges and universities, as
eminent academicians are often invited on short notice  to  give  an  occa-
sional  lecture  at  a  neighboring  institution.  NAFSA suggested that INS
modify its regulations so that short-term, concurrent employment be permit-
ted  with  written approval from the original employer.  Unfortunately, the
final rule makes no changes to the original proposal.

Although IMMACT 90 stated that the O visa would be  valid  for  the  period
needed  to  complete  an  event or activity, the Service's earlier proposal
placed a three-year time limit, with extensions granted in one-year  incre-
ments,  on  the O visa.  In response to many negative comments, the Service
clarified that initial admission of O-1 nonimmigrants  will  be  for  three
years, but total stay is limited to the duration of the event, however long
that might be.

INS also broadened their definition of "event" in the final rule and states
"an  event means an activity such as, but not limited to, a scientific pro-
ject, conference, convention, lecture series, academic year or  engagement.
Such  activity  could  include short vacations, promotional appearances and
stopovers which are incidental and/or related to the  event.   A  group  of
related activities will also be considered an event."

IMMACT 90 requires that O-1 petitioners submit evidence of  a  consultation
with  an appropriate peer group regarding the nature of the work to be done
in the alien's area of ability before  a  petition  can  be  approved.   To
facilitate  adjudication,  INS  advises  that  the  written consultation be
obtained first and submitted in conjunction with the petition.

Finally, because IMMACT 90 does not require that O-1s  maintain  a  foreign
residence,  INS  has removed this requirement from the final rule. INS also
states that approval of a labor certification or  filing  of  a  preference
petition  will not be an adequate basis for denying an O petition, although
this was not specified in IMMACT 90.

3. FILING AN H-1B PETITION AND LCA

If after reading the above you are thoroughly confused,  read  no  further.
If,  however,  you  are determined to file an H-1B petition before DOL pub-
lishes new regulations, read on!

A petitioner must submit form I-129 to INS accompanied by an approved  LCA,
any  documentation  required to establish that the beneficiary is qualified
to perform services in the specialty occupation, and copies of written con-
tracts  between  the  employer and beneficiary or a summary of the terms of
the oral agreement under which the beneficiary will be  employed.   Earlier
communications  from  the  Service indicated that until the new I- 129 form
were available, regional service centers would be accepting old  copies  of
the I-129 along with a letter certifying that the employer would be respon-
sible for return transportation costs of the alien abroad.  (The  new  form
contains  a  statement  on  return  transportation  to  be  signed  by  the
employer.)  However, since the final regulations  do  not  require  that  a
separate  statement  be  submitted, petitions filed on the old I-129 do not
need to be accompanied by such  a  letter  (although  employers  are  still
responsible for return travel costs).

Before a petitioner can file form I-129, the  employer  must  complete  and
submit  to  the  Labor  Department  an  LCA.   Here's where the fun starts!
According to DOL, employers should use form ETA 9035 (LCA) published in the
Federal Register on October 22, 1991.  However, changes to the labor attes-
tation process mandated by HR 3049, including the removal of  the  require-
ment  to  pay  the  required  wage to all "similarly situated workers," are
retroactive to October  1,  1991.   Unfortunately,  line  8a  of  ETA  9035
requires  employers  to  certify by checking a box that "H-1B nonimmigrants
and other similarly situated employed workers will be paid the actual  wage
for  the occupation at the place of employment or the prevailing wage level
for the occupation in the area of employment, whichever is  higher."   This
requirement  clearly  contradicts HR 3049!  Further complicating the situa-
tion, DOL has stated that if this box is  not  checked,  the  LCA  will  be
returned to the employer.

DOL will have to modify the procedure, although at  this  time  it  remains
uncertain  whether  or  not they will issue operating instructions prior to
publishing a new rule in January (it's unlikely DOL will issue a  new  form
in  the  near  future).   In the meantime, this contradiction poses serious
problems for employers wishing to file.  NAFSA  hopes  to  clarify  interim
filing  procedures  with  DOL and will alert members of any changes through
Bitnet and the GRAC regional representatives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Job Opportunities for Programmer/Analyst ..............................8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Genny Wang <[email-masked]>  Dec. 13, 1991

There are many Programmer/Analyst openning in my  company  in  Tampa  area,
applicant  must  have  IBM mainframe experience, and COBOL, JCL, VSAM, etc.
Please send RESUME to:
                        Charley  Chao
                        14100 N. 46th Street, U-13
                        Tampa, FL 33613

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Executive Editor of This Issue: Xiaowen Li.    Quality Monitor: Bo Xiong |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  China News Digest (CND) offers following services:                      |
|     (1) Global News (daily)        (2) US Regional News                  |
|     (3) Canada Regional News       (4) Europe & Pacific Regional News    |
|     (5) Hua Xia Wen Zhai (a weekly Chinese magazine)                     |
|     (6) several informational packages.                                  |
|  To subscribe or get help, mail to:   [email-masked]      |
|  To contribute news, please send to:  [email-masked]  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+