"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
Knowing quite a bit about this topic, I am going to chime in here...
A good lawyer would have told her that there is no chance even before
applying.

Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just as
finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two (maybe
three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different times) to
assist with the permanent resident application, but none offered that
advice.

The rules about the prevailing wage are there for a good reason.
Even for the work visa (I am assuming H1) the salary has to be at least
95% of the prevailing wage.

As I mentioned before, I'm not going to get into the debate as to whether
the rules make sense. Suffice to say, not everyone feels that "the
prevailing wage are there for a good reason".

Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage should
have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit organization isn't
going to pay the same pay scale as might be found at a high-revenue
commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or Sun...three big employers
that hire technical editors), or a for-profit periodical publication (say PC
World or Windows Magazine, or something like that).

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant. They simply cannot afford to compete with
other employers that are engaged in an entirely different business.

How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the prevailing
wage?

Because if they were, they would have kept my sister-in-law on at the higher
wage, rather than lose her skills. Finding someone to replace the skillset
she'd developed during the 12 years with the company (never mind the
experience she'd had prior) would have cost them far more than a salary
increase. The company was highly motivated to keep her as an employee, and
they did everything they could within their budget to assist in her
permanent resident application.

As things stand now, the company was forced to let her leave the country
unemployed, and hire someone else at the same wage (possibly lower), who was
less qualified than her.

Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

I assume you mean "isn't it more likely that they...", and the answer is no.

Pete