nat23
10-24 03:35 PM
As we get closer to election day it seems that Democrats will have control of the Congress. All the polls that have been and are being conducted show that the Democrats are leading the Republicans by double digits.
If Democrats win the CIR will get through but the there will be a huge backlog as there arent enough people at USCIS to do the work, which in a way is retrogession. There will be relief for people with advanced degrees but on paper only.As it will still take years for their paperwork to get through USCIS, others will be in a worse situation as the waiting line would be huge.
If Republicans win there will be no CIR as pointed out by others in the thread. However, SKIL might get through and that will help shorten the waiting period for people without advanced degrees.
Based on my analysis (which might be completely wrong), I think we are better off with Republicans.
If Democrats win the CIR will get through but the there will be a huge backlog as there arent enough people at USCIS to do the work, which in a way is retrogession. There will be relief for people with advanced degrees but on paper only.As it will still take years for their paperwork to get through USCIS, others will be in a worse situation as the waiting line would be huge.
If Republicans win there will be no CIR as pointed out by others in the thread. However, SKIL might get through and that will help shorten the waiting period for people without advanced degrees.
Based on my analysis (which might be completely wrong), I think we are better off with Republicans.
wallpaper Shia Labeouf was seen hand in
kumjay
06-26 02:56 PM
I love the way desi3933 jumps on someone else's comment in bold and red font. Keep it up!!
>> "No, employment letter is absolutely required...", well, it is not.
You are wrong. How are the pay stubs link to your future GC job. Employment Letter is listed right there on I-485 form as initial evidence.
Do NOT confuse Current Employment Letter with Employment Letter for GC job
Not a legal advice.
------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
>> "No, employment letter is absolutely required...", well, it is not.
You are wrong. How are the pay stubs link to your future GC job. Employment Letter is listed right there on I-485 form as initial evidence.
Do NOT confuse Current Employment Letter with Employment Letter for GC job
Not a legal advice.
------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
krustycat
10-08 12:39 PM
same here :(
July 3rd at 9:03 received by R.William
--------------------------------------------------------
lutherpraveen
PDOCT05
i99
helpme1234
kingnaga
waitforgc123
Rohan99
gclongwaytogo
cool_cat
sivanu
GKBest
bluesky1
greener_pasture
July 5th
------------------------------------
chalamcharla
mbsac
July 9, at 11.07 am at Nebraska signed by F.HEINAUER
------------------------------------------------------
krustycat
July 13, at 11.11 am at Nebraska signed by F.HEINAUER
------------------------------------------------------
gcnm04
July 16, 9:00 am at Nebraska signed by R Pitcher
--------------------------------------
viveckj99
gcspace
July 16, at 11.16 am at Nebraska signed by F.HEINAUER
------------------------------------------------------
fetch_gc
July 3rd at 9:03 received by R.William
--------------------------------------------------------
lutherpraveen
PDOCT05
i99
helpme1234
kingnaga
waitforgc123
Rohan99
gclongwaytogo
cool_cat
sivanu
GKBest
bluesky1
greener_pasture
July 5th
------------------------------------
chalamcharla
mbsac
July 9, at 11.07 am at Nebraska signed by F.HEINAUER
------------------------------------------------------
krustycat
July 13, at 11.11 am at Nebraska signed by F.HEINAUER
------------------------------------------------------
gcnm04
July 16, 9:00 am at Nebraska signed by R Pitcher
--------------------------------------
viveckj99
gcspace
July 16, at 11.16 am at Nebraska signed by F.HEINAUER
------------------------------------------------------
fetch_gc
2011 Breakfast with Audrey Hepburn
ilikekilo
03-06 10:52 PM
And worst is the lottery...
If you did send a FOIA request and you got a reponse from USCIS please fax/email that letter to PAPPU..thanks mirage..
If you did send a FOIA request and you got a reponse from USCIS please fax/email that letter to PAPPU..thanks mirage..
more...
jjava100
02-14 03:36 PM
Paypal transaction ID for this payment is: 29093004MH879794R.
pd_recapturing
08-18 01:12 PM
why cant we just file a lawsuit ??? What's stopping us from doing that ?
Where is IV core these days ? There has not been any news from them for so long.
Where is IV core these days ? There has not been any news from them for so long.
more...
english_august
07-09 09:56 AM
I have read in a few places that we plan to send flowers on 11, and 12th also?
If that is the case then the document has to be updated to include those dates. Also, I suggest collecting emails and fax numbers and assigning a few people to do the actual "sending". This will make it easier to coordinate.
11th and 12th were added later because by Saturday evening when the core team decided to support this campaign, we weren't entirely sure if delivery on the 10th was still possible.
However, majority of flowers are going to be delivered on the 10th so I wanted to keep the focus on that single date.
If you want to go ahead with co-ordinating the actual sending then please go ahead - I think it will be very helpful.
If that is the case then the document has to be updated to include those dates. Also, I suggest collecting emails and fax numbers and assigning a few people to do the actual "sending". This will make it easier to coordinate.
11th and 12th were added later because by Saturday evening when the core team decided to support this campaign, we weren't entirely sure if delivery on the 10th was still possible.
However, majority of flowers are going to be delivered on the 10th so I wanted to keep the focus on that single date.
If you want to go ahead with co-ordinating the actual sending then please go ahead - I think it will be very helpful.
2010 Shia Labeouf#39;s girlfriend
dish
12-10 12:21 PM
Kennedy, McCain, 2 congressmen meet
By Jerry Kammer
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
December 9, 2006
WASHINGTON � Two of the most liberal members of Congress met with two of their most conservative colleagues this week to revive immigration legislation that passed the Senate but was throttled by House Republican leaders who resisted its attempt to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Sen. Edward Kennedy
�The plan is to bring the bill up in late winter,� said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a conservative stalwart who attended the meeting in the office of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The other participants were Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
The strategy session Wednesday came amid speculation about how the dynamics of the immigration debate might change, if at all, when Democrats take control of the House and Senate next month.
Flake said that Kennedy, who will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, wants to let the new Congress deal first with issues such as the war in Iraq and proposals to raise the minimum wage.
�Then he'll be ready to go� with a new version of the bill that the Senate approved in April.
Sen. John McCain
Republicans ran the show in both houses of Congress then, and passionate divisions in their ranks over immigration policy became a dominant feature of the debate. Democrats, particularly in the House, were mostly content to sit back and enjoy the stalemate, even as they campaigned against the �do-nothing Republican Congress.�
Now Democrats face the hazards of immigration politics.
Immigration-law changes are conspicuously absent from the legislative agenda laid out by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Observers here say it will be difficult for Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to honor her campaign-season pledge to work for a new comprehensive immigration law without splitting a caucus that includes freshly elected Democrats who vowed to secure the border and crack down on illegal immigration.
The November midterm elections seemed to send mixed messages.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
In a cliffhanger contest, Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a conservative Republican and strident foe of illegal immigration, was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell.
Immigration advocates such as Ben Johnson of the Immigration Policy Center say Hayworth's defeat showed that immigration �did not turn out to be the firebrand issue that some people thought it could be.�
But immigration restrictionists point out that Mitchell made getting tough on immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. They also say Mitchell cleverly used the issue against Hayworth, saying his Republican opponent was part of a political regime that wasn't competent enough to stop the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that sweep across Arizona's southern border each year.
While Mitchell said he favored legal status for long-established immigrants, he insisted that immigration policy can be fixed only by �members of Congress who are willing to enforce the law, produce real immigration reform and stop playing politics with the issue.�
Rep. Jeff Flake
That enforcement-heavy approach is fine with immigration advocates as long as it is part of a package that provides permanent legal status to those who are beckoned across the border by agriculture, restaurant, construction, landscaping and janitorial jobs. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is estimated to be at least 11 million.
Immigrant-rights advocates, along with their allies at the National Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations, also support a proposal to provide hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers every year for employers who demonstrate that they are unable to find Americans to fill the slots.
While McCain and Kennedy describe this as a �temporary-worker program,� the legislation they sponsored would put the workers on a path to citizenship.
At a time of anxiety about the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, the McCain-Kennedy bill's efforts to import low-wage labor has drawn the anger of critics across the political spectrum. That is why Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration restrictions, predicts Pelosi will be reluctant to get behind a proposal that could endanger the new Democratic majority.
�Nancy Pelosi knows the Democrats are on probation for the next two years,� Krikorian said.
He predicted that Pelosi would back less ambitious immigration change, such as a plan to provide legal status to undocumented students, rather than take on the explosive issue of mass legalization, which critics condemn as an amnesty that would spawn more illegal immigration.
But Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates for immigrant rights, argues that next year will be pivotal because of the presidential race that follows.
Advertisement
�I think that once we hit primary (election) season, controversial issues get a lot harder to do,� Sharry said. �Everybody I talk to says 2007 is the window of opportunity.�
Pelosi was noncommittal this week on whether the House would take up immigration legislation. She sought to deflect some of the responsibility to the White House, suggesting that she expects President Bush to offer more specifics than his call to �match willing worker with willing employer.�
�That's up to the president,� Pelosi said. �We want to work closely with him because it has to be comprehensive and bipartisan.�
President Bush's political advisers, meanwhile, have acknowledged that revamping immigration law may be necessary to shore up sagging support for Republicans among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group. Republicans received just 30 percent of the Hispanic vote this year, down from 44 percent in 2004.
By Jerry Kammer
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
December 9, 2006
WASHINGTON � Two of the most liberal members of Congress met with two of their most conservative colleagues this week to revive immigration legislation that passed the Senate but was throttled by House Republican leaders who resisted its attempt to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Sen. Edward Kennedy
�The plan is to bring the bill up in late winter,� said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a conservative stalwart who attended the meeting in the office of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The other participants were Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
The strategy session Wednesday came amid speculation about how the dynamics of the immigration debate might change, if at all, when Democrats take control of the House and Senate next month.
Flake said that Kennedy, who will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, wants to let the new Congress deal first with issues such as the war in Iraq and proposals to raise the minimum wage.
�Then he'll be ready to go� with a new version of the bill that the Senate approved in April.
Sen. John McCain
Republicans ran the show in both houses of Congress then, and passionate divisions in their ranks over immigration policy became a dominant feature of the debate. Democrats, particularly in the House, were mostly content to sit back and enjoy the stalemate, even as they campaigned against the �do-nothing Republican Congress.�
Now Democrats face the hazards of immigration politics.
Immigration-law changes are conspicuously absent from the legislative agenda laid out by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Observers here say it will be difficult for Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to honor her campaign-season pledge to work for a new comprehensive immigration law without splitting a caucus that includes freshly elected Democrats who vowed to secure the border and crack down on illegal immigration.
The November midterm elections seemed to send mixed messages.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
In a cliffhanger contest, Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a conservative Republican and strident foe of illegal immigration, was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell.
Immigration advocates such as Ben Johnson of the Immigration Policy Center say Hayworth's defeat showed that immigration �did not turn out to be the firebrand issue that some people thought it could be.�
But immigration restrictionists point out that Mitchell made getting tough on immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. They also say Mitchell cleverly used the issue against Hayworth, saying his Republican opponent was part of a political regime that wasn't competent enough to stop the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that sweep across Arizona's southern border each year.
While Mitchell said he favored legal status for long-established immigrants, he insisted that immigration policy can be fixed only by �members of Congress who are willing to enforce the law, produce real immigration reform and stop playing politics with the issue.�
Rep. Jeff Flake
That enforcement-heavy approach is fine with immigration advocates as long as it is part of a package that provides permanent legal status to those who are beckoned across the border by agriculture, restaurant, construction, landscaping and janitorial jobs. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is estimated to be at least 11 million.
Immigrant-rights advocates, along with their allies at the National Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations, also support a proposal to provide hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers every year for employers who demonstrate that they are unable to find Americans to fill the slots.
While McCain and Kennedy describe this as a �temporary-worker program,� the legislation they sponsored would put the workers on a path to citizenship.
At a time of anxiety about the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, the McCain-Kennedy bill's efforts to import low-wage labor has drawn the anger of critics across the political spectrum. That is why Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration restrictions, predicts Pelosi will be reluctant to get behind a proposal that could endanger the new Democratic majority.
�Nancy Pelosi knows the Democrats are on probation for the next two years,� Krikorian said.
He predicted that Pelosi would back less ambitious immigration change, such as a plan to provide legal status to undocumented students, rather than take on the explosive issue of mass legalization, which critics condemn as an amnesty that would spawn more illegal immigration.
But Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates for immigrant rights, argues that next year will be pivotal because of the presidential race that follows.
Advertisement
�I think that once we hit primary (election) season, controversial issues get a lot harder to do,� Sharry said. �Everybody I talk to says 2007 is the window of opportunity.�
Pelosi was noncommittal this week on whether the House would take up immigration legislation. She sought to deflect some of the responsibility to the White House, suggesting that she expects President Bush to offer more specifics than his call to �match willing worker with willing employer.�
�That's up to the president,� Pelosi said. �We want to work closely with him because it has to be comprehensive and bipartisan.�
President Bush's political advisers, meanwhile, have acknowledged that revamping immigration law may be necessary to shore up sagging support for Republicans among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group. Republicans received just 30 percent of the Hispanic vote this year, down from 44 percent in 2004.
more...
phillyag
08-25 01:47 PM
No I did not...the date before it was of back in 2008.
My PD is Jan-17-2006 at NSC.
I got another soft LUD today but no change to my 485 status.
What does this mean ? I already got my approved EAD card 2 weeks back and the only thing pending is the 485 application.
My PD is Jan-17-2006 at NSC.
I got another soft LUD today but no change to my 485 status.
What does this mean ? I already got my approved EAD card 2 weeks back and the only thing pending is the 485 application.
hair Shia LaBeouf And Carey
nozerd
03-09 10:03 PM
I have a similar story. I have also been here since 1991 in status all these yrs and still without a GC. Here is my timeline.
1991 -1996: Came to US as undergrad. Worked my way through school. Full time job and full time studies. 4 yrs course took me 5 yrs as I never took summers so I can earn my fees.
1996-1998: Finished Masters.
1999 : Got my job in my current company on OPT as entry level analyst. Later that year went on H1.
2001 : Firm filed for Labor certification. Their reqt was 2 yrs work before applying for GC. Reputable American firm.
2005 : Labor certification approved.
2006 : I 140 filed and approved. Got 8-11 yr H1 extension. Still waiting for GC due to retro. Thinking of moving to Canada.
And yes in the 8 yrs I have been with my company I have got 3 promotions and am now a Manager. My companys immigration lawyer said thats ok. He just joked that when you get your green card just make sure you get tripple demotion to new role.
So when new kids on the block (<5 yrs in US) talk about GC process being screwed up, I say pick a number and wait in line. The closest example to this feeling is waiting to go to the restroom when you live in a slum and there is line of 100 ppl ahead of you to use the loo and you have loose motions :)
another story:
i have a close friend who has been here since 1991 with no GC. he came for his undergraduate studies in 1991..finished that...got a good job...met a girl...got married...girl was also an undergrad here then went to grad school...then lost his job..girl was still in school...lost almost everything
then he built his life back..got a job....started working his way up...girl graduated..worked in a small company and then changed jobs..started gc process for the 3rd time...luckily got ead and ap....girl changed jobs...bought a house...retrogression happened....and hes still waiting
can u beat that...hes been here for 16 years.
putting off decisions is very easy when it comes to gc...many times u just need to bite the bullet and live ur life. dont get me wrong.. i have put off getting my h1b stamped for over 3 yrs...havent been out of the country for 5 yrs...now i have decided its not worth it and will do it sometime this yr.
like russell peter's chinese person says "be a man...do the right thing"
1991 -1996: Came to US as undergrad. Worked my way through school. Full time job and full time studies. 4 yrs course took me 5 yrs as I never took summers so I can earn my fees.
1996-1998: Finished Masters.
1999 : Got my job in my current company on OPT as entry level analyst. Later that year went on H1.
2001 : Firm filed for Labor certification. Their reqt was 2 yrs work before applying for GC. Reputable American firm.
2005 : Labor certification approved.
2006 : I 140 filed and approved. Got 8-11 yr H1 extension. Still waiting for GC due to retro. Thinking of moving to Canada.
And yes in the 8 yrs I have been with my company I have got 3 promotions and am now a Manager. My companys immigration lawyer said thats ok. He just joked that when you get your green card just make sure you get tripple demotion to new role.
So when new kids on the block (<5 yrs in US) talk about GC process being screwed up, I say pick a number and wait in line. The closest example to this feeling is waiting to go to the restroom when you live in a slum and there is line of 100 ppl ahead of you to use the loo and you have loose motions :)
another story:
i have a close friend who has been here since 1991 with no GC. he came for his undergraduate studies in 1991..finished that...got a good job...met a girl...got married...girl was also an undergrad here then went to grad school...then lost his job..girl was still in school...lost almost everything
then he built his life back..got a job....started working his way up...girl graduated..worked in a small company and then changed jobs..started gc process for the 3rd time...luckily got ead and ap....girl changed jobs...bought a house...retrogression happened....and hes still waiting
can u beat that...hes been here for 16 years.
putting off decisions is very easy when it comes to gc...many times u just need to bite the bullet and live ur life. dont get me wrong.. i have put off getting my h1b stamped for over 3 yrs...havent been out of the country for 5 yrs...now i have decided its not worth it and will do it sometime this yr.
like russell peter's chinese person says "be a man...do the right thing"
more...
vadicherla
11-17 03:24 PM
Done
hot #4226048 Shia LaBeouf and
pcs
02-09 08:33 PM
I am sending $ 20 ...
Please keep sending emails to all members and encourage them to chip in regularly..
Please keep sending emails to all members and encourage them to chip in regularly..
more...
house Shia LaBeouf and Carey
Lisap
09-11 04:11 PM
Hi Lisap,
I got an email last night saying EAD card ordered on Sep8 which is a saturday.. This morning I got two emails again saying that same card was ordered on Sep 10. However this is the spouse's ead and I see the lud as 9/10 on 5 of our 485/ead/ap apps. However spouse AP (whose ead was ordered) still has 9/5. I don't understand y they approve one and take time for the other. I think their system has some issues...
Did ur case status say 'ordered' before you got the ead in mail?
Thanks.
No mine did not say that for myself or my husband. It just said approval notice sent. It still says the same thing it has never changed or been updated. It could be there system- who knows! I hope you get yours soon! Keep me updated.
I got an email last night saying EAD card ordered on Sep8 which is a saturday.. This morning I got two emails again saying that same card was ordered on Sep 10. However this is the spouse's ead and I see the lud as 9/10 on 5 of our 485/ead/ap apps. However spouse AP (whose ead was ordered) still has 9/5. I don't understand y they approve one and take time for the other. I think their system has some issues...
Did ur case status say 'ordered' before you got the ead in mail?
Thanks.
No mine did not say that for myself or my husband. It just said approval notice sent. It still says the same thing it has never changed or been updated. It could be there system- who knows! I hope you get yours soon! Keep me updated.
tattoo Actor Shia LaBeouf is
diesel
05-23 12:11 PM
Thanks for the hard work...
more...
pictures Shia LaBeouf GQ
Dhundhun
07-21 09:44 PM
I'm confused!
I am July 2nd filer from last year. I did receive a FP notice in Oct 2007 but couldn't go for it. I sent a letter asking for another date but TSC..So go figure!...
Is e-filing costly? - NO
Does paper based filing not trigger FP? - NO
Is it slower? - NO
I am July 2nd filer from last year. I did receive a FP notice in Oct 2007 but couldn't go for it. I sent a letter asking for another date but TSC..So go figure!...
Is e-filing costly? - NO
Does paper based filing not trigger FP? - NO
Is it slower? - NO
dresses Most Americans only know Carey
ch102
03-16 12:21 PM
some useful info from Ron gotcher
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-3/2009-03.html
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-3/2009-03.html
more...
makeup Shia LaBeouf and Carey
gg_ny
06-28 07:31 PM
Hi,
This is not going to be a concrete suggestions like the ones seen above in the page 7 of this thread. There is a large India Caucus in the senate (also in House??) and they are well tuned to the reality of situations. I dont mean that these efforts should narrowed down to a particular subpopulation of retrogression victims. This is just a suggestion with good intentions. Even if this India Caucus congress members may not have direct role in immigration bills, I wonder whether they could be used to approach other members with stake in this immigration legislation. I am sorry I dont know anybody in that caucus (wish I did).
This is not going to be a concrete suggestions like the ones seen above in the page 7 of this thread. There is a large India Caucus in the senate (also in House??) and they are well tuned to the reality of situations. I dont mean that these efforts should narrowed down to a particular subpopulation of retrogression victims. This is just a suggestion with good intentions. Even if this India Caucus congress members may not have direct role in immigration bills, I wonder whether they could be used to approach other members with stake in this immigration legislation. I am sorry I dont know anybody in that caucus (wish I did).
girlfriend Shia LaBeouf has been stepping
DallasBlue
08-25 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitednations
If companies used h-1b the way it is supposed to be written then really the only people who would get one would be OPT candidates who joined while they are on OPT.
That is not true - those who are qualified and for whom a job is available in the US will eventually make it here. If the requirement is genuine, then the company will go to India and get that skilled labor. Big companies have been known to hire talent internationally.
No way; would an H-1b get filed for a person who is outside the country. Consulting companies would like to adhere to the laws. However; when their existing employees keep referring friends or friends of friends then as a protective measure they are forced to file the H-1b; or they risk losing the existing employee to someone else.
Your argument that some consulting companies would like to adhere to laws, but are forced not to because they fear the employee will leave is sufficient reason for those companies to be shut down. There is no excuse for breaking the law, and that too intentionally. It is obvious from your argument these companies are greedy and give the rest of the H-1B visa holders a bad name.
Keep in mind; the big problem currently is "transfers" and "extensions". Not so much quota cases. USCIS is not keeping up with the business norms. Many of the consulting companies do not have agreements with end clients and end clients will generally not give letters to consulatants to verify that they are actually working there.
The only time I have seen a consulting company file an H-1b for a person (transfer) and they are not on project; is that the employee has lost the current job or their company wants them to go back home and they do not want to go back home. Employee will do everything possible not to go back.
It is understandable that an individual will do whatever he can to better his social and economic situation. But it has to be done within the limits of the law. In your example, the consulting company should just say no. However, the company is greedy and wants to make money from the unfortunate situation of the poor guy who just lost his job.
I always go back through an example I used to see in the work place. Two people at the same level and one has a bigger cubicle. Other person with smaller cubicle complains. End result is that they don't make his cubicle bigger but make the other persons smaller.
Complaining or pointing fingers at one subsection of people using h-1b or greencards and getting uscis/lawmakers to fix it; it doesn't stop there. Eventually; it will come onto you. Many people on these forums/threads don't care about h-1b but only greencards. Do all of you think that it will only stop at H-1b's and won't spill over to greencards?
Are you are asking the immigrant community to condone the abusive/illegal practice of a subsection of people because the USCIS will come after everybody? On the contrary, I would rather they looked at every case closely to ensure that there is a valid job offer and no abuse. And it seems that they are now doing just that. This would ensure a smooth process those who follow the law - so there is nothing to fear whether it is H-1B or Green card application.
Having said that, the immigrant community should try to request the USCIS with some administrative fixes where the H-1B visa holder is not immediately out of status when he loses his job. If they give a grace period of three months or so, then one cae join either look for a new job, or wrap things up and go home. In the absence of such pressure, H-1B visa holders are less likely to find themselves in the hands of abusive consulting companies. The changes to H-1B proposed by Dick Durban and Co. only focussed on protecting american workers (which is all good). BUT, there was nothing in there that would protect the foreign worker's interest if he lost his job. We need to impress upon the congress or USCIS to give some grace period (which to my mind should be an easy administrative fix).
Maybe we are getting off the topic.
USCIS is giving a hard time for h-1b's.
If vemont service center:
ensure LCA is for client location and company location.
ensure that you can get a legitimate letter/contract from place you are actually working. ensure letter/contract says that the terms (duration) is extendable (under the law; uscis only has to approve the h-1b until the PO finishes if it is less then three years).
For companies: Cancel h-1b for people who have left. Cancel h-1b's for people who have not joined (uscis in their rfe's are frequently quoting number of h-1b's filed and comparing to current head count).
for california service center:
companies need to analyze their DE-6 and look to see who hasn't been paid the lca wage for all four quarters. Give proper/proactive explanations for people where it is not obvious why they weren't paid proper lca wage.
get legitimate client letter/purchase order from end client. Ensure that when filing H-1b; the LCA covers the client location. USCIS will generally not accept a new LCA covering the location after the h-1b has been filed.
Ensure the numbrer of active h-1b's is close to your headcount. If people haven't joined or aren't going to join; cancel h-1b's immediately.
For consulate: do not ever give fake purchase order/client letter. Consulates are very smart that they know major companies do not give such letters. They are frequently referring cases to department of state in kentucky to contact clients who wrote the letters. If client doesn't confrm (ie., HR at client company) then it is a very, very big problem for all people concerned.
For extensions; file as early as possible so you don't have issues with your drivers license, etc.
USCIS relies on a lot of case precdece to deny cases. many times they are misapplying these cases and going outside the law what is really required. In motion to reopens; california is very quick in givingin another decision. However; vermont sits on it for many, many months and they very rarely change their decisions.
When changing client locations then as a minimum get a new LCA but if you really want to cover yourself then consider amending h-1b for new location.
UN,
am always puzzled how H1B is valid also for outsourcing the h1b-employee to another company (like sub-sub-.....sub-contracting) ?
wasnt h1b intended for a inhouse job rather than a job at a client company ?
Originally Posted by unitednations
If companies used h-1b the way it is supposed to be written then really the only people who would get one would be OPT candidates who joined while they are on OPT.
That is not true - those who are qualified and for whom a job is available in the US will eventually make it here. If the requirement is genuine, then the company will go to India and get that skilled labor. Big companies have been known to hire talent internationally.
No way; would an H-1b get filed for a person who is outside the country. Consulting companies would like to adhere to the laws. However; when their existing employees keep referring friends or friends of friends then as a protective measure they are forced to file the H-1b; or they risk losing the existing employee to someone else.
Your argument that some consulting companies would like to adhere to laws, but are forced not to because they fear the employee will leave is sufficient reason for those companies to be shut down. There is no excuse for breaking the law, and that too intentionally. It is obvious from your argument these companies are greedy and give the rest of the H-1B visa holders a bad name.
Keep in mind; the big problem currently is "transfers" and "extensions". Not so much quota cases. USCIS is not keeping up with the business norms. Many of the consulting companies do not have agreements with end clients and end clients will generally not give letters to consulatants to verify that they are actually working there.
The only time I have seen a consulting company file an H-1b for a person (transfer) and they are not on project; is that the employee has lost the current job or their company wants them to go back home and they do not want to go back home. Employee will do everything possible not to go back.
It is understandable that an individual will do whatever he can to better his social and economic situation. But it has to be done within the limits of the law. In your example, the consulting company should just say no. However, the company is greedy and wants to make money from the unfortunate situation of the poor guy who just lost his job.
I always go back through an example I used to see in the work place. Two people at the same level and one has a bigger cubicle. Other person with smaller cubicle complains. End result is that they don't make his cubicle bigger but make the other persons smaller.
Complaining or pointing fingers at one subsection of people using h-1b or greencards and getting uscis/lawmakers to fix it; it doesn't stop there. Eventually; it will come onto you. Many people on these forums/threads don't care about h-1b but only greencards. Do all of you think that it will only stop at H-1b's and won't spill over to greencards?
Are you are asking the immigrant community to condone the abusive/illegal practice of a subsection of people because the USCIS will come after everybody? On the contrary, I would rather they looked at every case closely to ensure that there is a valid job offer and no abuse. And it seems that they are now doing just that. This would ensure a smooth process those who follow the law - so there is nothing to fear whether it is H-1B or Green card application.
Having said that, the immigrant community should try to request the USCIS with some administrative fixes where the H-1B visa holder is not immediately out of status when he loses his job. If they give a grace period of three months or so, then one cae join either look for a new job, or wrap things up and go home. In the absence of such pressure, H-1B visa holders are less likely to find themselves in the hands of abusive consulting companies. The changes to H-1B proposed by Dick Durban and Co. only focussed on protecting american workers (which is all good). BUT, there was nothing in there that would protect the foreign worker's interest if he lost his job. We need to impress upon the congress or USCIS to give some grace period (which to my mind should be an easy administrative fix).
Maybe we are getting off the topic.
USCIS is giving a hard time for h-1b's.
If vemont service center:
ensure LCA is for client location and company location.
ensure that you can get a legitimate letter/contract from place you are actually working. ensure letter/contract says that the terms (duration) is extendable (under the law; uscis only has to approve the h-1b until the PO finishes if it is less then three years).
For companies: Cancel h-1b for people who have left. Cancel h-1b's for people who have not joined (uscis in their rfe's are frequently quoting number of h-1b's filed and comparing to current head count).
for california service center:
companies need to analyze their DE-6 and look to see who hasn't been paid the lca wage for all four quarters. Give proper/proactive explanations for people where it is not obvious why they weren't paid proper lca wage.
get legitimate client letter/purchase order from end client. Ensure that when filing H-1b; the LCA covers the client location. USCIS will generally not accept a new LCA covering the location after the h-1b has been filed.
Ensure the numbrer of active h-1b's is close to your headcount. If people haven't joined or aren't going to join; cancel h-1b's immediately.
For consulate: do not ever give fake purchase order/client letter. Consulates are very smart that they know major companies do not give such letters. They are frequently referring cases to department of state in kentucky to contact clients who wrote the letters. If client doesn't confrm (ie., HR at client company) then it is a very, very big problem for all people concerned.
For extensions; file as early as possible so you don't have issues with your drivers license, etc.
USCIS relies on a lot of case precdece to deny cases. many times they are misapplying these cases and going outside the law what is really required. In motion to reopens; california is very quick in givingin another decision. However; vermont sits on it for many, many months and they very rarely change their decisions.
When changing client locations then as a minimum get a new LCA but if you really want to cover yourself then consider amending h-1b for new location.
UN,
am always puzzled how H1B is valid also for outsourcing the h1b-employee to another company (like sub-sub-.....sub-contracting) ?
wasnt h1b intended for a inhouse job rather than a job at a client company ?
hairstyles her future with Shia. Shia
rsharma
09-23 01:33 PM
"EB-2 India. This category is expected to remain unchanged or to move very slowly forward (by a week or so) in the short-term. This is mainly caused by the fact that many EB-3 India applicants (there are approximately 60,000 EB-3 India pending cases) are �porting� their priority dates into the EB-2 India category and are thus taking visa numbers.
EB2 India is slowwly becoming EB3 as thousands are porting from EB3 to EB2. Some of them are really worthy of EB2 and some of them are fradulent.
EB2 India applicants should wake up from their celebratio of a few months leap and get ready for slow movement or retro.
Guys wake up and fight to make the porting rules veryu strong if not stop porting. The rule should be if I140 for porting is denied then the applicatnt should loose his/her initial EB3 priority date also as he /she has indicated that he/she is no longer working in the position as described in EB3 labor. This will make sure that fradulent applicants cannot port from EB3 to EB2.
P.S: I know I will get thousands of REDs. I do not care... EB2 I guys wake up.. Time is running out.. EB2 I will very quickly become same as EB3I.
EB2 India is slowwly becoming EB3 as thousands are porting from EB3 to EB2. Some of them are really worthy of EB2 and some of them are fradulent.
EB2 India applicants should wake up from their celebratio of a few months leap and get ready for slow movement or retro.
Guys wake up and fight to make the porting rules veryu strong if not stop porting. The rule should be if I140 for porting is denied then the applicatnt should loose his/her initial EB3 priority date also as he /she has indicated that he/she is no longer working in the position as described in EB3 labor. This will make sure that fradulent applicants cannot port from EB3 to EB2.
P.S: I know I will get thousands of REDs. I do not care... EB2 I guys wake up.. Time is running out.. EB2 I will very quickly become same as EB3I.
test101
07-09 06:47 PM
awsome....
Now we should let the media know . Walter Reed ! could not ask for a better place. The Patient and soldier deserve it . My heart goes to them as an RN.
Now we should let the media know . Walter Reed ! could not ask for a better place. The Patient and soldier deserve it . My heart goes to them as an RN.
desi3933
01-30 05:23 PM
You being US citizen or president of USA does not mean much to us! I have requested you to show me "so called 30 day rule" on any of the official web site (For example USCIS). I have asked you this several times. Every time You just direct us to some lawyer's web site/university web site and expect us to believe them.
Show me the information on official web site and I will shut up.
Since you asked -
Here is link from Department of Labor website. Read for yourself and I have included relevant quote.
Link (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/title_20/Part_655/20CFR655.731.htm)
(ii) Even if the H-1B nonimmigrant has not yet "entered into employment" with the employer (as described in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section), the employer that has had an LCA certified and an H-1B petition approved for the H-1B nonimmigrant shall pay the nonimmigrant the required wage beginning 30 days after the date the nonimmigrant first is admitted into the U.S. pursuant to the petition, or, if the nonimmigrant is present in the United States on the date of the approval of the petition, beginning 60 days after the date the nonimmigrant becomes eligible to work for the employer. For purposes of this latter requirement, the H-1B nonimmigrant is considered to be eligible to work for the employer upon the date of need set forth on the approved H-1B petition filed by the employer, or the date of adjustment of the nonimmigrant's status by INS, whichever is later.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Show me the information on official web site and I will shut up.
Since you asked -
Here is link from Department of Labor website. Read for yourself and I have included relevant quote.
Link (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/title_20/Part_655/20CFR655.731.htm)
(ii) Even if the H-1B nonimmigrant has not yet "entered into employment" with the employer (as described in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section), the employer that has had an LCA certified and an H-1B petition approved for the H-1B nonimmigrant shall pay the nonimmigrant the required wage beginning 30 days after the date the nonimmigrant first is admitted into the U.S. pursuant to the petition, or, if the nonimmigrant is present in the United States on the date of the approval of the petition, beginning 60 days after the date the nonimmigrant becomes eligible to work for the employer. For purposes of this latter requirement, the H-1B nonimmigrant is considered to be eligible to work for the employer upon the date of need set forth on the approved H-1B petition filed by the employer, or the date of adjustment of the nonimmigrant's status by INS, whichever is later.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
No comments:
Post a Comment