tinuverma
03-17 01:44 PM
Thanks for the response Tom. What if I want to use my EAD card and not do an H1 transfer. Is that going to be a problem?
There is no requirement for number of employees. You need to make sure the company is financially capable to do H1. You must make sure you get salary equal or above the salary offered in your LC. And also the job duties are same or similar.
There is no requirement for number of employees. You need to make sure the company is financially capable to do H1. You must make sure you get salary equal or above the salary offered in your LC. And also the job duties are same or similar.
wallpaper tattoo ideas for wrist. for
GCD
07-27 09:21 PM
Me, Wife and I signed for Daughter on all applications(485(3)/EAD(2)/AP(3))
We also sent signed G28 for everybody for every application( 8 total)
It doesn't hurt to be over cautious.
I hope we are fine.
We also sent signed G28 for everybody for every application( 8 total)
It doesn't hurt to be over cautious.
I hope we are fine.
ss1026
08-06 08:58 AM
According to USCIS Ombudsman 1/3rd of cases are pending more than 1 year due to namecheck. Also there are many cases stuck for more than 3 years. E
I think that 1/3 of PENDING cases have been stuck for more than one year, not 1/3 of all cases. Trust me if 1/3 of all cases were stuck for more than one year, there would be a huge outcry
I think that 1/3 of PENDING cases have been stuck for more than one year, not 1/3 of all cases. Trust me if 1/3 of all cases were stuck for more than one year, there would be a huge outcry
2011 good tattoo ideas,
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
shaikhshehzadali
07-16 07:16 PM
Lets not count the chickens before they are hatched. Its entirely plausible that if anything favourable comes up, its due to combined efforts. Lets not fight out yet, as if we havent seen anything concrete yet.
cheers
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
cheers
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
needhelp!
04-15 05:35 PM
I'm happy it finally worked out for you! Will you be changing your handle now ? :)
more...
seekerofpeace
09-13 09:38 AM
Folks,
I am really amazed to see the verbal war of words between these two artificially created groups aka the lines of "Divide and Rule" policy by the erstwhile masters of our country...
I can understand the feelings but the profanity and the language used won't lead us anywhere.
Frustration is the only common thing among the EBI applicants...some more some less...
I know of a lot of EB2s like me who came to this country for higher studies more than a decade back and got delayed in filing for their residency and had to suffer...While many who came with a job here and filed using EB3 then, have their parents as residents now....
Why is there no anger towards the many L1 managers who get residency through EB1.without much educational qualifications and forget about national interest waiver...I know a few, who came in 2006 and are residents within a year or so....
I also saw many of my friends through unfair labor substitutions got ahead of me unfairly and are now citizens...
Bottomline is people won't apply in a particular category unless they think it is best in their interests...In this economy most companies are tightening their purse.....it is a common fact that 90% of EB I applicants are software engineers.the demand of which will wane over the years in the immediate future and next generation technology demand will increase aka green and biotech....and much water has flowed in Mississipi since the days of Y2K when even people with fraud degrees and vague backgrounds came here and flourished......
The infighting reminds me of the crab story in which of all the baskets of various sea animals/fishes in a fish market the only basket whose lid was open was one with crabs...a buyer when enquired the uniqueness of that crab basket was promptly told by the seller that in this basket if any crab wants to go out and be free all the other crabs will join and pull it back to the basket so I don't have to worry.......
Let's not be these crabs....I am sure there exists common grounds in IV otherwise if this continues I am sure there will be a vertical split in IV...between EB2 and EBI..and ROW will laugh at us.........
SoP
I am really amazed to see the verbal war of words between these two artificially created groups aka the lines of "Divide and Rule" policy by the erstwhile masters of our country...
I can understand the feelings but the profanity and the language used won't lead us anywhere.
Frustration is the only common thing among the EBI applicants...some more some less...
I know of a lot of EB2s like me who came to this country for higher studies more than a decade back and got delayed in filing for their residency and had to suffer...While many who came with a job here and filed using EB3 then, have their parents as residents now....
Why is there no anger towards the many L1 managers who get residency through EB1.without much educational qualifications and forget about national interest waiver...I know a few, who came in 2006 and are residents within a year or so....
I also saw many of my friends through unfair labor substitutions got ahead of me unfairly and are now citizens...
Bottomline is people won't apply in a particular category unless they think it is best in their interests...In this economy most companies are tightening their purse.....it is a common fact that 90% of EB I applicants are software engineers.the demand of which will wane over the years in the immediate future and next generation technology demand will increase aka green and biotech....and much water has flowed in Mississipi since the days of Y2K when even people with fraud degrees and vague backgrounds came here and flourished......
The infighting reminds me of the crab story in which of all the baskets of various sea animals/fishes in a fish market the only basket whose lid was open was one with crabs...a buyer when enquired the uniqueness of that crab basket was promptly told by the seller that in this basket if any crab wants to go out and be free all the other crabs will join and pull it back to the basket so I don't have to worry.......
Let's not be these crabs....I am sure there exists common grounds in IV otherwise if this continues I am sure there will be a vertical split in IV...between EB2 and EBI..and ROW will laugh at us.........
SoP
2010 Butterfly Tattoo Designs 2
krustycat
03-06 12:03 PM
No actually its seems different from the receipt numbers which usually starts with SRC-xxxxxxxxxx
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
It's a typical service request. They filed your claim.
PIT = city in where you live (Pittsburgh maybe?)
xxxxxxxxxx = 10 numbers for your reference
TSC = Center processing your application or where you sent the original I-765.
The claim gives they 60 days to get back to you with a reply. Usually is useless, they're only taking extra time to have you calmed.
I've had my applications lost for 7 months. I filed a SR also. Nothing happened.
I still have 4 applications lost from 12.
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
It's a typical service request. They filed your claim.
PIT = city in where you live (Pittsburgh maybe?)
xxxxxxxxxx = 10 numbers for your reference
TSC = Center processing your application or where you sent the original I-765.
The claim gives they 60 days to get back to you with a reply. Usually is useless, they're only taking extra time to have you calmed.
I've had my applications lost for 7 months. I filed a SR also. Nothing happened.
I still have 4 applications lost from 12.
more...
gcisadawg
04-05 08:50 PM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
This is talking about I-140 and not I-485.....
My I-140 filed with TSC is still pending since August 2007. I hope I get a decision ( hopefully positive) by Sep 2009!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
This is talking about I-140 and not I-485.....
My I-140 filed with TSC is still pending since August 2007. I hope I get a decision ( hopefully positive) by Sep 2009!
hair tattoo ideas crosses. yabadaba
ilikekilo
04-22 02:06 PM
Hi, This is my first post here and I need some guidance regarding new-H1 under FY2010 quota.
--One of my friend told me about this company in Chicago who is doing H-1s and apparently the quota is not over yet. I am in India and
--Is it advisable to get my H01 filed at this time?
--What if the USCIS asks client letters? They said, the company will take care of it if that happens -- is that even legal to say that?
--What is the probably the CAP will be met by that time they file my H-1 in the next 2 weeks? And am not sure if the attorney returns the money in that case.
Please suggest. Thanks
my 2 cents
Please be mindful if you are applying from home thru' so called consultancies. I have seen (not heard) enough cases being abused...
bottomline, dont fall for something if it sounds too good to be true. you dont want to become a statistic! good luck..
last but not least, its really bad out here..so dont jump the ship just yet
--One of my friend told me about this company in Chicago who is doing H-1s and apparently the quota is not over yet. I am in India and
--Is it advisable to get my H01 filed at this time?
--What if the USCIS asks client letters? They said, the company will take care of it if that happens -- is that even legal to say that?
--What is the probably the CAP will be met by that time they file my H-1 in the next 2 weeks? And am not sure if the attorney returns the money in that case.
Please suggest. Thanks
my 2 cents
Please be mindful if you are applying from home thru' so called consultancies. I have seen (not heard) enough cases being abused...
bottomline, dont fall for something if it sounds too good to be true. you dont want to become a statistic! good luck..
last but not least, its really bad out here..so dont jump the ship just yet
more...
amsgc
04-07 08:49 PM
The non-profit organizations that meet the following criteria are cap exempt:
1. A nonprofit organization or entity related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education, as such institutions of higher education are defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, section 101(a), 20 U.S.C. section 1001(a)
2. A nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization, as defined in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C)
Now read page : 54 of the following link for (2):
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/pdf/8cfr214.2.pdf
Please share your understanding.
I have questions about working for a nonprofit that is not a research organization.
1. A nonprofit organization or entity related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education, as such institutions of higher education are defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, section 101(a), 20 U.S.C. section 1001(a)
2. A nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization, as defined in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C)
Now read page : 54 of the following link for (2):
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/pdf/8cfr214.2.pdf
Please share your understanding.
I have questions about working for a nonprofit that is not a research organization.
hot Free Tattoo Designs - how get
kondur_007
09-22 09:58 AM
I have a pending I-485 application (EB-3) and effective Oct 1, my PD will be current. My application has been pending for more than six months already so I will be covered by AC21. I never worked for my sponsoring employer but will be as soon as I get my GC.
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
Well, you have two options:
1. Use AC 21 (I am assuming your 140 is approved and 485 is filed more than 6 months ago) and move to another employer BEFORE the approval of GC. With this option, neither you nor your employer would have any obligation for the job after GC approval. Your AC 21 employer is now the "new permanent job" for you after GC approval.
2. If you have good terms with the employer, ask them to hire you for at least 1-2 months after GC approval and then "fire" you. This way you would be safe. (it was not your fault but the employer fired you). Also if the employer does not pay salary mentioned in LC, you can leave them giving that reason (save the pay stubs for evidence later on, if asked for).
3. If your employer simply do not offer you a job after the approval of GC, it still would not be yoru fault. In this scenario, likelyhood is that, you will be safe. However, this technically would be a sort of misrepresentation by the employer and on that grould USCIS can revoke your GC saying that "employer falsified the initial job offer and there was really no job ever for the position mentioned on LC". While this is a possibility it is a remote possibility.
I would suggest option 1,2 and 3 in that order as "desirability" of your situation.
Again I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can suggest as far as I know.
Good Luck.
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
Well, you have two options:
1. Use AC 21 (I am assuming your 140 is approved and 485 is filed more than 6 months ago) and move to another employer BEFORE the approval of GC. With this option, neither you nor your employer would have any obligation for the job after GC approval. Your AC 21 employer is now the "new permanent job" for you after GC approval.
2. If you have good terms with the employer, ask them to hire you for at least 1-2 months after GC approval and then "fire" you. This way you would be safe. (it was not your fault but the employer fired you). Also if the employer does not pay salary mentioned in LC, you can leave them giving that reason (save the pay stubs for evidence later on, if asked for).
3. If your employer simply do not offer you a job after the approval of GC, it still would not be yoru fault. In this scenario, likelyhood is that, you will be safe. However, this technically would be a sort of misrepresentation by the employer and on that grould USCIS can revoke your GC saying that "employer falsified the initial job offer and there was really no job ever for the position mentioned on LC". While this is a possibility it is a remote possibility.
I would suggest option 1,2 and 3 in that order as "desirability" of your situation.
Again I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can suggest as far as I know.
Good Luck.
more...
house Armband tattoos are one of the
Rb_newsletter
07-13 05:31 PM
I am in similar situation but in GC process. My ex-colleagues are afraid to write experience letter for me.
Some colleagues who are still working in the same company doesn't want the company to know about the letter. They are afraid that company would take action if USCIS contacts the company to verify the letter.
Some colleagues who are out of the company are concerned about USCIS process. Basically they don't want to involve in any queries/RFEs from USCIS.
Some colleagues who are still working in the same company doesn't want the company to know about the letter. They are afraid that company would take action if USCIS contacts the company to verify the letter.
Some colleagues who are out of the company are concerned about USCIS process. Basically they don't want to involve in any queries/RFEs from USCIS.
tattoo Good tattoo ideas for girls
gk_2000
01-26 03:25 PM
Waste of time. How many PhD's are there as compared to the others? There is already EB1/EB2-NIW for them
more...
pictures Best Tattoo Designs For Men
nixstor
11-04 02:27 PM
Here's my exact situation:
- My employer is company A
- I am assigned by Company A to Company B (corp-to-corp)
- Company B assigned me to Client X
- I want to move to Company Z
- Company Z would assign me to the same Client X
My non-compete clause says something like... Employee(I) cannot work to client of Company A within 1 year of leaving Company A
Now, is client X considered as client of company A? I'm thinking that company B is the client of company A. Thus, it should be okay if I move to company Z and be assigned to client X.
Any thoughts?
It depends on how big the company is. Companies like Bearingpoint, Accenture will take them seriously some times. If this is just yet another staffing firm, they are not going to waste their money for a lawyer and time on you. As others said, these contract papers have no value. (unless they spent like 10K on training you outside of the company).
- My employer is company A
- I am assigned by Company A to Company B (corp-to-corp)
- Company B assigned me to Client X
- I want to move to Company Z
- Company Z would assign me to the same Client X
My non-compete clause says something like... Employee(I) cannot work to client of Company A within 1 year of leaving Company A
Now, is client X considered as client of company A? I'm thinking that company B is the client of company A. Thus, it should be okay if I move to company Z and be assigned to client X.
Any thoughts?
It depends on how big the company is. Companies like Bearingpoint, Accenture will take them seriously some times. If this is just yet another staffing firm, they are not going to waste their money for a lawyer and time on you. As others said, these contract papers have no value. (unless they spent like 10K on training you outside of the company).
dresses cloud tattoos. tattoos de
meridiani.planum
04-01 04:18 AM
Hello Everyone -
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
ur PD is 2006-EB2-India and you were called for an interview? thats odd. the interview typically when the case is close to approval, why are they bothering with your case so soon.. something is not adding up
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
ur PD is 2006-EB2-India and you were called for an interview? thats odd. the interview typically when the case is close to approval, why are they bothering with your case so soon.. something is not adding up
more...
makeup a perfect tattoo design is
ivgclive
03-31 09:13 AM
Dude,
You are capable of hitting the target even before your gun fires.
Poor immigration officers !
If you feel you are not getting result do not keep your attorney because you like him. Change and try.
You are capable of hitting the target even before your gun fires.
Poor immigration officers !
If you feel you are not getting result do not keep your attorney because you like him. Change and try.
girlfriend Tattoo ideas to mark a baby#39;s
gconmymind
06-02 01:09 PM
If you use your EAD, your wife will need to maintain her own status like L1, H1, F1, etc. There is no dependent status on EAD (like H4 for H1).
hairstyles But what are the est tattoos for a woman#39;s ankle?
JDM
08-27 12:18 AM
bump^^^^^^^^^^^
maine_gc
02-01 07:32 AM
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
blizkreeg
01-26 12:44 PM
Seriously, who cares that Andhra bagged 7 ranks. How on earth is it relevant to the discussion going on here? Plus this isn't a forum for Indians only(and I'm Indian).
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
No comments:
Post a Comment