Googler
06-18 05:10 PM
Our beloved DHS secretary Chertoff says on June 14, 2007:
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/sp_1181915713176.shtm
"know Secretary Gutierrez is also dedicated, as am I, to working very hard with members of Congress. We've been up there probably more than in our own offices over the last couple months, trying to make sure that members understand that comprehensive reform, while not perfect, offers the best chance to get all the sectors of the economy what they need in terms of work, offers the opportunity to deal humanely with what is a continuing social problem, and from my standpoint, offers us the best opportunity to maximize our efforts on national security, because, as I have said time and again, when I have agents out hunting illegal lettuce pickers, waiters and housekeepers, they're not chasing drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. I, frankly, think the drug dealers, criminals and terrorists are the biggest threat to this country."
Then why the hell are law abiding scientists, tech workers, students et al being subjected to these kafka-esque name checks?? Seriously. I think we should start bombarding Congressional offices and Chertoff et all with phone calls. Now that the Ombudsman's data is out, USCIS and FBI can no longer say what they have been saying all these years, that the scale of the problem is miniscule.
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
Sen. Obama and Rep. Gutierrez introduced the Citizen Promotion Act in March 2007. The bill has a provision that asks for a namecheck to be completed in 90 days (also includes mumbo jumbo about GAO studying the problem, but the results are already in thanks to the Ombudsman).
See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.795:
We should enlist the co-sponsors of these bills to kill Sec 531 (k) and when CIR finally dies, to pass an amended version of the Citizen Promotion Act.
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/sp_1181915713176.shtm
"know Secretary Gutierrez is also dedicated, as am I, to working very hard with members of Congress. We've been up there probably more than in our own offices over the last couple months, trying to make sure that members understand that comprehensive reform, while not perfect, offers the best chance to get all the sectors of the economy what they need in terms of work, offers the opportunity to deal humanely with what is a continuing social problem, and from my standpoint, offers us the best opportunity to maximize our efforts on national security, because, as I have said time and again, when I have agents out hunting illegal lettuce pickers, waiters and housekeepers, they're not chasing drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. I, frankly, think the drug dealers, criminals and terrorists are the biggest threat to this country."
Then why the hell are law abiding scientists, tech workers, students et al being subjected to these kafka-esque name checks?? Seriously. I think we should start bombarding Congressional offices and Chertoff et all with phone calls. Now that the Ombudsman's data is out, USCIS and FBI can no longer say what they have been saying all these years, that the scale of the problem is miniscule.
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
Sen. Obama and Rep. Gutierrez introduced the Citizen Promotion Act in March 2007. The bill has a provision that asks for a namecheck to be completed in 90 days (also includes mumbo jumbo about GAO studying the problem, but the results are already in thanks to the Ombudsman).
See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.795:
We should enlist the co-sponsors of these bills to kill Sec 531 (k) and when CIR finally dies, to pass an amended version of the Citizen Promotion Act.
wallpaper The results for each
gcpain
06-25 03:09 PM
You guys are great. Guys like you are making this world better place to live. I wish you both good luck.
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
lenbin
10-24 04:29 PM
h1 extension applied on july 14th on oct 19th approval notice sent..
2011 that smoking may effect
123456mg
07-20 02:59 AM
Immigration attorneys normally send more than required documents to avoid getting RFEs later on. In this case, the reason people send W-2s (though it is not mandated) is to show that you were working and were making approximately equal amount that was mentioned on you H-1B LCA.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
more...
daishwarya
07-20 03:03 PM
@Sanjay, sent you a private message. Please check.
rsayed
02-02 09:37 AM
Best Wishes for a fabulous future! Congratulations!
more...
h1techSlave
05-14 12:19 PM
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feeling also.
Morning is over. We all are in mourning since the bulletin went out...
Morning is over. We all are in mourning since the bulletin went out...
2010 Smoking – Seeing Results
Blog Feeds
02-01 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)
more...
amitkhare77
09-04 09:54 AM
Question : If I get H1 transferred to NEWEMP (basically work on H1 and NOT EAD), and CURREMP revokes I-140, will this effect my GC process. I intend to work on H1 and keep on renewing EAD based on i-485 filed. NEWEMP will be providing AC21 letter which will be send to USCIS after I join them.
NO, I-485 filing > 180, also the I-140 is approved.
1. Will there be any effect to my GC process in case CURR Company revokes I-140?
No. if you send AC21 letter, you will not receive NOID (you might get RFE)
2. Can I keep on renewing EAD even though I would work on H1 with NewEMP?
Yes
Here is my thought -
If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
Let say if you start using EAD now, you will have 1 yr 5 months left on your H1B. if there is something wrong with I-485, you can file H1B from different employer (this will not count against quota, as you have unsed 1 yr 5 month left on your H1B), go out of country and come back on H1B (you have more than 1 year left you can start another GC process :))
just my thought, you might want to validate this with any leagal expert.
NO, I-485 filing > 180, also the I-140 is approved.
1. Will there be any effect to my GC process in case CURR Company revokes I-140?
No. if you send AC21 letter, you will not receive NOID (you might get RFE)
2. Can I keep on renewing EAD even though I would work on H1 with NewEMP?
Yes
Here is my thought -
If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
Let say if you start using EAD now, you will have 1 yr 5 months left on your H1B. if there is something wrong with I-485, you can file H1B from different employer (this will not count against quota, as you have unsed 1 yr 5 month left on your H1B), go out of country and come back on H1B (you have more than 1 year left you can start another GC process :))
just my thought, you might want to validate this with any leagal expert.
hair The negative effect of smoking
skd
01-10 12:54 PM
66% of the people who voted know someone who lost job in this Marker, I was in US when dot-com burst happened, But even then I don't think it was as bad as this time around.
Worst part is every one I talk to says that worst is still to come. If it is so bad now , I don't know what it will be like when it is "worst". Scary situation. Even if you forget about GC, Getting a job and holding on to the job will be difficult.
:confused::confused::confused::confused:
Worst part is every one I talk to says that worst is still to come. If it is so bad now , I don't know what it will be like when it is "worst". Scary situation. Even if you forget about GC, Getting a job and holding on to the job will be difficult.
:confused::confused::confused::confused:
more...
gc_check
01-08 10:39 AM
I used standard 2x2. Its mentioned at their website too.
Thanks for quick response.
Thanks for quick response.
hot smoking cigarettes
ganguteli
06-12 11:26 AM
Why before October?
Because this year's greencards are expired. New quota starts in October. So he should apply labor by then so that he gets his greencard on Oct 1, 2009 by overnight FedEx at 9.00 AM.
Because this year's greencards are expired. New quota starts in October. So he should apply labor by then so that he gets his greencard on Oct 1, 2009 by overnight FedEx at 9.00 AM.
more...
house effect for smoking group.
senk1s
11-09 01:28 AM
We were not even included in this counting :)
our ND is in Oct
our ND is in Oct
tattoo Results: tbb 1956 Smoking
watzgc
10-24 02:55 PM
Friends, we sent our h1b extension application in Jul 12 th to Vermont (VSC) and got receipt with in a week but still under process. now it is showing processing datge Apr 2007, can we convert to premium processing now ?. Thanks,:confused:
more...
pictures results for smoking guns
BharatPremi
07-12 04:34 PM
I believe the only reason EB visa numbers have gone unused in recent years is due to the the inability of FBI in completing namecheck/background check in a timely FIFO fashion. As a result USCIS is unable to approve pending I485s even when the visa numbers are available. This also keeps the VISA BULLETIN doors closed for new I485s.
This (besides labor backlog) spoils the FIFO for GCs.
Fixing FBI security check process will end such visa bulletin fiasco. I believe in recent year or two USCIS has processed various applications (including I485) in a very timely fashion (ofcourse there are exceptions). But many I485s get stuck in the security check bottleneck. Since, visa number is assigned at the approval time the whole FIFO goes to hell.
DOS should be issuing VISA BULLETIN based on pending approvable I485 (meaning security check complete) and fiscal year visa availability. If former is smaller than latter then bulletin dates should move forward based on approved I140s which have not applied for AOS. This is not rocket science but simple math which is lost on DOS, USCIS & FBI.
However, fixing FBI security checks (timely completion) will restore FIFO once labor backlog is gone.
FBI delays is the prime reason for this fiasco.
BTW my AOS is pending due to indefinite background check delay.
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
This (besides labor backlog) spoils the FIFO for GCs.
Fixing FBI security check process will end such visa bulletin fiasco. I believe in recent year or two USCIS has processed various applications (including I485) in a very timely fashion (ofcourse there are exceptions). But many I485s get stuck in the security check bottleneck. Since, visa number is assigned at the approval time the whole FIFO goes to hell.
DOS should be issuing VISA BULLETIN based on pending approvable I485 (meaning security check complete) and fiscal year visa availability. If former is smaller than latter then bulletin dates should move forward based on approved I140s which have not applied for AOS. This is not rocket science but simple math which is lost on DOS, USCIS & FBI.
However, fixing FBI security checks (timely completion) will restore FIFO once labor backlog is gone.
FBI delays is the prime reason for this fiasco.
BTW my AOS is pending due to indefinite background check delay.
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
dresses results for smoking joint
PHANI_TAVVALA
12-02 08:06 AM
Hello Guys, I am in dilemma about applying for my greencard. I cam to U.S in 1999 ON F-1 and later converted to H1B after working on CPT and OPT. My 6th year is going to end Spet 30th 2009. I have never been too inclined about settling over in U.S and I didn't care to apply for my Greencard. I am in the process of completing my part-time M.B.A and would like to extend my stay by another year or 2 (that is end of 2010 or 2011).
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
more...
makeup results for smoking crack
jvs_annapurna
04-20 02:32 PM
Hi guys
There is lot of misunderstanding. As i mentioned my H1 extension was denied on 31st march
Then i worked out with a lawyer for my options. She said i can get H1 transfer. I filed H1 transfer premium processing on april 6th with new employer(american company).It was approved on 13th and we received it on april 16th.
There is lot of misunderstanding. As i mentioned my H1 extension was denied on 31st march
Then i worked out with a lawyer for my options. She said i can get H1 transfer. I filed H1 transfer premium processing on april 6th with new employer(american company).It was approved on 13th and we received it on april 16th.
girlfriend Results 3.1. Smoking 3.1.1.
helmet
01-15 08:37 PM
I think they will send the results with in a week time. you have to mail them the original results certificate with in 120days.
hairstyles results for smoking ban
Siddhartht
07-26 03:14 AM
remit2India.com is the best among all . the feature guarantee fixed is the best feature they offer .
Nabeel
10-25 10:05 AM
Hi guys,
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
What is your existing H1 Expiry date ? I applied my 7th year extension on July 30 and got my H1 approved on Oct 17th. As per my lawyer, USCIS work on extension cases based on your existing H1 Expiry. His statement looks valid to me since my H1 was expiring on 24th of Oct and I got my approval on 17th. My attorney also applied some other H1 cases around same time when he filed my case but he is still receiving approval on these cases one by one because other cases are little far from their H1 expiry.
Nabeel
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
What is your existing H1 Expiry date ? I applied my 7th year extension on July 30 and got my H1 approved on Oct 17th. As per my lawyer, USCIS work on extension cases based on your existing H1 Expiry. His statement looks valid to me since my H1 was expiring on 24th of Oct and I got my approval on 17th. My attorney also applied some other H1 cases around same time when he filed my case but he is still receiving approval on these cases one by one because other cases are little far from their H1 expiry.
Nabeel
roseball
05-14 01:34 PM
H-1B is approved from Oct/1/2009. Currently I should be on L-1B. As per this article, I think I can travel without jeopardizing my future status. They call it the 'Hernandez letter'. Is this true?
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Yes, its true. COS to H1 is not active till Oct 1st, 2009. Which means you are still on L-1B till Sep 30th, 2009. You can travel and come back to US as long as you are coming back on the same visa status you applied a COS petition from to change to H-1B, meaning re-entering on L-1B only. You can't re-enter on say a B1 visa and expect your status to be changed to H-1B on Oct 1st. Your COS petition was applied for L-1B to H-1B, so you should be on a valid L-1B status on Oct 1st for your status to be changed to H-1B. Since you are planning to come back on L-1B visa, you should be good to go. If you return on a different status, you will have to file another COS petition to change to H-1B by appending the already approved H1 petition so you wont be counted again agaisnt the H1 quota.
However, like its mentioned in the Murthy's article you quoted, the Hernandez letter is just a response to a set of questions that were asked and not a law/memo. So incase in future if this causes some doubts on your status, you can just use that letter to defend your situation but it will be upto USCIS to make the final decision. Hope this helps.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Yes, its true. COS to H1 is not active till Oct 1st, 2009. Which means you are still on L-1B till Sep 30th, 2009. You can travel and come back to US as long as you are coming back on the same visa status you applied a COS petition from to change to H-1B, meaning re-entering on L-1B only. You can't re-enter on say a B1 visa and expect your status to be changed to H-1B on Oct 1st. Your COS petition was applied for L-1B to H-1B, so you should be on a valid L-1B status on Oct 1st for your status to be changed to H-1B. Since you are planning to come back on L-1B visa, you should be good to go. If you return on a different status, you will have to file another COS petition to change to H-1B by appending the already approved H1 petition so you wont be counted again agaisnt the H1 quota.
However, like its mentioned in the Murthy's article you quoted, the Hernandez letter is just a response to a set of questions that were asked and not a law/memo. So incase in future if this causes some doubts on your status, you can just use that letter to defend your situation but it will be upto USCIS to make the final decision. Hope this helps.
No comments:
Post a Comment