Meet In CommonNews

Local

13 H-2B workers approved for Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction employers at Nebraska worksites in fiscal 2026 through June 30, 2026

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: Arizona Business Daily

There were 13 H-2B worker approvals for employers classified in Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction with worksites recorded in Nebraska in fiscal 2026 through June 30, 2026, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS approved all 13 decided workers, resulting in a 100% approval rate. There was 1 petitioner for these workers. These figures count workers represented in USCIS initial approval and denial decisions on H-2B petitions and are not counts of petitions, visa issuances or individual people. The location comes from the worksite recorded on the linked Labor Department labor certification and not where the employer is based. The industry is the two-digit NAICS sector that describes the employer on that certification and does not refer to the workers' occupation. The figures reflect fiscal 2026 through June 30, 2026, and cover a partial year.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at Arizona Business Daily

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Protecting natural places can justify limiting visitor numbers.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Software says a student cheated with AI. Is that enough to fail the paper?

A teacher suspects several essays were written with AI. Detection software marks one student's work as highly likely to be generated, but the software is known to make mistakes and the student denies using it.

How should responsibility be assigned when evidence is powerful but unreliable?

Explore this quandary