h1bemployee
02-25 06:07 PM
I came to US on h1b visa in Feb 2007.... after joining my first job my employer applied for a change in LCA because of the new salary(which is less than the original)... USCIS replied to that amendment after 16 months with an RFE... My comapany responded to that RFE and after that they got a reply from the USCIS that the H1b amendment is denied....
My employer told me that I have to leave USA with in the next 2 weeks. But my h1b is valid up to sep 2009.
what are the options for me?
can I apply for a H1b transfer?
please help
My employer told me that I have to leave USA with in the next 2 weeks. But my h1b is valid up to sep 2009.
what are the options for me?
can I apply for a H1b transfer?
please help
wallpaper shooting-star-tattoos.jpg
gcFiler08
02-15 03:42 PM
Any news on this bill.
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 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)
2011 small nautical star tattoos
kumargn
11-15 08:24 PM
I just noticed that the dates in Chennai are not available for returning H1's. What should i do ??Can i book in any consulate ..
more...
rayen
02-05 03:47 PM
Chris,
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
h1bemployee
02-25 06:07 PM
I came to US on h1b visa in Feb 2007.... after joining my first job my employer applied for a change in LCA because of the new salary(which is less than the original)... USCIS replied to that amendment after 16 months with an RFE... My comapany responded to that RFE and after that they got a reply from the USCIS that the H1b amendment is denied....
My employer told me that I have to leave USA with in the next 2 weeks. But my h1b is valid up to sep 2009.
what are the options for me?
can I apply for a H1b transfer?
please help
My employer told me that I have to leave USA with in the next 2 weeks. But my h1b is valid up to sep 2009.
what are the options for me?
can I apply for a H1b transfer?
please help
more...
asanghi
10-15 11:51 AM
What are you saying? Health Services dismal? I thought it was better than US in many aspects. The cost is cheap for treatment (unless you have some uncommon disease. Since the system is churning up so many doctors, there is a lot of competition. Even in small villages you will find many doctors competing for patients. Maybe that is not true for everywhere, but that is what I have seen in my home state Haryana.
Also the education system may not be perfect, but kids don't have to go to private schools, because public schools have run out of capacity. There are problems like not all-around development, and not all kids doing great in studies. But that is true even in US, unless you are sending your kids to a fine private school (which by the way you can do in India, if you have money). JMHO
US has been in number 1 in the past, moved to 2nd spot for a couple of years, in the world competitiveness rankings. For the first time, the US moved to the 6th Spot in the world rankings by the world economic forum (Europe based Institution). The main reason was because of the huge current account deficit and negative savings (mainly federal deficit) which is a threat to the US competitiveness. China moved down due to corruption etc. India moved up but any further movement will depend on structural reforms, especially controlling the huge public service and red-tape and a creaking infrastructure - power, roads, ports, water supply - all of which are run by the government. The health services in large parts of India is dismal and so is the public education system (K-12). With the left firmly controlling the ruling party, deregulation is slow and insipid, and it is the private sector which is basically contributing to the GDP and Competitiveness. Here is the link to the actual rankings for 2006-2007
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/top50.pdf
The reasons for the rankings are given here
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm
Also the education system may not be perfect, but kids don't have to go to private schools, because public schools have run out of capacity. There are problems like not all-around development, and not all kids doing great in studies. But that is true even in US, unless you are sending your kids to a fine private school (which by the way you can do in India, if you have money). JMHO
US has been in number 1 in the past, moved to 2nd spot for a couple of years, in the world competitiveness rankings. For the first time, the US moved to the 6th Spot in the world rankings by the world economic forum (Europe based Institution). The main reason was because of the huge current account deficit and negative savings (mainly federal deficit) which is a threat to the US competitiveness. China moved down due to corruption etc. India moved up but any further movement will depend on structural reforms, especially controlling the huge public service and red-tape and a creaking infrastructure - power, roads, ports, water supply - all of which are run by the government. The health services in large parts of India is dismal and so is the public education system (K-12). With the left firmly controlling the ruling party, deregulation is slow and insipid, and it is the private sector which is basically contributing to the GDP and Competitiveness. Here is the link to the actual rankings for 2006-2007
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/top50.pdf
The reasons for the rankings are given here
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm
2010 shooting star tattoo
abhijitp
01-26 05:42 PM
^^
more...
Administrator2
09-07 01:25 PM
IV Core,
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
Could we just keep the focus of this thread to encourage more members to send the information required to setup the meetings on Sept 17th? Your comments may be important and you may have a valid concern, but mixing all the information and individual meeting view-points is going to create a chaos.
Walking_dude,
If you have any question, could you please simply send an email? Volunteers working on this effort are working day in and day out and they are not going to come to this thread to read your post and to answer your question. Your post is relevant, but somewhere else. It is not helping what we are trying to do on this thread. You apparently have the documents so that means you know which email to write your comments/concerns.
Hope you understand what we are trying to say.
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
Could we just keep the focus of this thread to encourage more members to send the information required to setup the meetings on Sept 17th? Your comments may be important and you may have a valid concern, but mixing all the information and individual meeting view-points is going to create a chaos.
Walking_dude,
If you have any question, could you please simply send an email? Volunteers working on this effort are working day in and day out and they are not going to come to this thread to read your post and to answer your question. Your post is relevant, but somewhere else. It is not helping what we are trying to do on this thread. You apparently have the documents so that means you know which email to write your comments/concerns.
Hope you understand what we are trying to say.
hair shooting star tattoo designs.
singhsa3
05-18 05:31 PM
How about getting one own's Phd....
How long does it takes?
How long does it takes?
more...
gjoe
10-05 11:07 AM
Are you a lawyer? :)
Lawsuit was done few years ago by Rajiv Khanna. Its big business for the lawyers. End result: nothing. So if you want to throw your money to the lawyers, be my guest.
God helps those who help themselves and not to those who throw money to the lawyers. If you want to help yourself, then help IV.
If we have a strong case we won't end up in monetory loses. BTW USCIS has plenty of money now to pay with all those new fees they collected for the applications.
Lawyers will charge money for their service, but finding a good lawyer is what we have to do.
PS: Pardon my typos and spellings
Lawsuit was done few years ago by Rajiv Khanna. Its big business for the lawyers. End result: nothing. So if you want to throw your money to the lawyers, be my guest.
God helps those who help themselves and not to those who throw money to the lawyers. If you want to help yourself, then help IV.
If we have a strong case we won't end up in monetory loses. BTW USCIS has plenty of money now to pay with all those new fees they collected for the applications.
Lawyers will charge money for their service, but finding a good lawyer is what we have to do.
PS: Pardon my typos and spellings
hot Shooting star tattoos are
dollar500
08-09 09:13 PM
This bill is mostly for aviation safety. It doesn't necessarily applies to immigrants who are applying for permanent residency.
more...
house This is Design Tattoo Star
franklin
07-13 03:28 PM
Dont we need to wear saris and dhotis , we are followers of Gandhian principles ?
We may follow the principles, but we are not all Indian. There will be a significant non Indian presence at the rally.
Please guys, I love your enthusiasm, but lets not confuse the people attending the rally :) You've now made me think for about 30mins about what I should wear tomorrow!
Official dress code, and presentation will be posted in the main thread shortly.
Trust me, we plan to make this one VERY different than illegal rallies.
We may follow the principles, but we are not all Indian. There will be a significant non Indian presence at the rally.
Please guys, I love your enthusiasm, but lets not confuse the people attending the rally :) You've now made me think for about 30mins about what I should wear tomorrow!
Official dress code, and presentation will be posted in the main thread shortly.
Trust me, we plan to make this one VERY different than illegal rallies.
tattoo shooting stars tattoos.
optimizer
01-15 11:15 AM
My case is also under extended review and in the same situation as other VSG/affiliate current/former employees in this thread.
Based on the current situation and discussing with other members it doesn't really look like USCIS will revoke or deny I140/I485s enmasse, but you never know.
We have followed the law and were always employed with paystubs and everything and have nothing to fear.
I have formed a yahoo group for current/former VSG employees whose GC is stuck.
Group members can share experiences and exchange ideas as we go through the pain of GC Processing.
Staying as a group we can plan to hire a powerful attorney if god forbid our situation gets worse.
I have already sent group invite to some of you to join this group. If you are interested in joining, send me a private message or email me at thebestoptimizer @ gmail.com
I believe Suvendra had posted the same question in the OTHER popular immigration forum and had some replies there.
Thanks,
Optimizer
Based on the current situation and discussing with other members it doesn't really look like USCIS will revoke or deny I140/I485s enmasse, but you never know.
We have followed the law and were always employed with paystubs and everything and have nothing to fear.
I have formed a yahoo group for current/former VSG employees whose GC is stuck.
Group members can share experiences and exchange ideas as we go through the pain of GC Processing.
Staying as a group we can plan to hire a powerful attorney if god forbid our situation gets worse.
I have already sent group invite to some of you to join this group. If you are interested in joining, send me a private message or email me at thebestoptimizer @ gmail.com
I believe Suvendra had posted the same question in the OTHER popular immigration forum and had some replies there.
Thanks,
Optimizer
more...
pictures spider web tattoo meaning
EndlessWait
06-20 12:10 PM
.. bumping
dresses stars tattoos designs.
ppp
01-17 12:40 PM
Hi all,
I recieved AINP File number on Nov -05-2009. Since then i havent recieved anything else.Can anyone send me the link to check the processing time for AINP, a part from the this link (Alberta, Canada - Immigration : Processing times (http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/processingtimes.html)).
Thanks in Advance.
PPP
I recieved AINP File number on Nov -05-2009. Since then i havent recieved anything else.Can anyone send me the link to check the processing time for AINP, a part from the this link (Alberta, Canada - Immigration : Processing times (http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/processingtimes.html)).
Thanks in Advance.
PPP
more...
makeup star tattoos for wrist
miami75
07-03 11:47 PM
In Miami, as my nickname
girlfriend Star Tattoos Gone Wrong
sameer2730
05-15 08:24 AM
You are faking!!!
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
Thank you sir for finally putting into words what I always suspected. This is shit to attract attention to their site. That was the first place this nonsense came up and just watch how active that thread is . Everywhere else the thread dies quickly.
Other signs these threads are bull. They either give too much info (All tax returns info for the past 10 years) or too little (I got a one line RFE). Secondly look at the id of this guy "Mishras" - How many S Mishra's got this RFE. Where is the effing anonimity. Just a bunch of amateurs trying too hard to make up believe they are authentic.
The other anti's I see here posing as good guys
"GCFORMEORNOT" - Always digging up fear mongering threads to distract from our main goal
"EASTINDIA" - Real first class asshole posing as someone who is a crusader of playing by the rules.
Another reason I feel the above too are rouge is because they change their RED - GREEN status like the markets of 2008. One day they are bright red and the next day they are bright green. Basically they have teamed up each other or maybe other anti's to get the greens just to look authentic.
May those who indulge in this classless activity burn in effing hell.
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
Thank you sir for finally putting into words what I always suspected. This is shit to attract attention to their site. That was the first place this nonsense came up and just watch how active that thread is . Everywhere else the thread dies quickly.
Other signs these threads are bull. They either give too much info (All tax returns info for the past 10 years) or too little (I got a one line RFE). Secondly look at the id of this guy "Mishras" - How many S Mishra's got this RFE. Where is the effing anonimity. Just a bunch of amateurs trying too hard to make up believe they are authentic.
The other anti's I see here posing as good guys
"GCFORMEORNOT" - Always digging up fear mongering threads to distract from our main goal
"EASTINDIA" - Real first class asshole posing as someone who is a crusader of playing by the rules.
Another reason I feel the above too are rouge is because they change their RED - GREEN status like the markets of 2008. One day they are bright red and the next day they are bright green. Basically they have teamed up each other or maybe other anti's to get the greens just to look authentic.
May those who indulge in this classless activity burn in effing hell.
hairstyles shooting star tattoo designs.
superdude
07-17 11:26 PM
Am I in the same situation? My spouse left US today to INDIA. However we filled the 485 on July 2nd. Will they consider that as abandonment of the application?
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
gc_bulgaria
02-12 02:40 PM
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/28005017/
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
amsgc
04-02 08:43 PM
The deal is: GC application is for a future job offer. That means, the company that files for your GC tells the USCIS that they will employ you in the xyz position once you get the green card.
According to the law, you are not required to have worked for that employer at all. Therefore, yes, you can get an employment letter from any employer (180 days after filing I-485), as long as the offer is bonafide, the job is full time & permanent, and the job duties & occupation is similar to the one mentioned in your labor certification.
Technically, you can work for a company like TekSystems on EAD, and when time comes, provide USCIS with a bonafide employment letter from any company that wants to hire you when you get the GC.
Now, some people have raised concerns over the question of "intent". How do you reinforce the fact that you indeed intend to join the new employer when you get the GC? For this reason, when people switch jobs using AC21, they generally go to work for a company that will give them the employement letter.
Ofcourse, the above discussion is in light of what we know today. The USCIS is working on modifying some of the provisions, so things may change a bit in the near future.
Ams
Does that mean a person can't work for companies like TekSystems on EAD? Senior members, please advice. I would like to switch from my desi employer and join the vendor directly as there is a big pay difference. Any information will be greatly appreciated.
According to the law, you are not required to have worked for that employer at all. Therefore, yes, you can get an employment letter from any employer (180 days after filing I-485), as long as the offer is bonafide, the job is full time & permanent, and the job duties & occupation is similar to the one mentioned in your labor certification.
Technically, you can work for a company like TekSystems on EAD, and when time comes, provide USCIS with a bonafide employment letter from any company that wants to hire you when you get the GC.
Now, some people have raised concerns over the question of "intent". How do you reinforce the fact that you indeed intend to join the new employer when you get the GC? For this reason, when people switch jobs using AC21, they generally go to work for a company that will give them the employement letter.
Ofcourse, the above discussion is in light of what we know today. The USCIS is working on modifying some of the provisions, so things may change a bit in the near future.
Ams
Does that mean a person can't work for companies like TekSystems on EAD? Senior members, please advice. I would like to switch from my desi employer and join the vendor directly as there is a big pay difference. Any information will be greatly appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment