indio0617
12-31 07:52 AM
Guys ,
Is there anyone know whether H1 increasing issue will be introduced again in Congress or not ?
YES. I believe that will certainly be re-introduced as one of the measures in 2006
Is there anyone know whether H1 increasing issue will be introduced again in Congress or not ?
YES. I believe that will certainly be re-introduced as one of the measures in 2006
wallpaper The Basilica of San Marco
like_watching_paint_dry
09-07 09:59 AM
I'm not sure how much help this would be. But I've noticed in the past that companies in India like Wipro et al apply for H1/L1 for their employees and keep the H1 around. And when the need arises, they send them over on short term work assignments (anywhere from 1 - 18 months).
Ideally for the purpose of meetings etc, they should be using the B visa, especially when they have not sponsored an immigrant petition. But in your case, you have an immigrant intent so I guess a H or L is the way to go. Please consult an attorney as I have no idea about what implications your Canadian pay setup will have over the 'pay prevailing wages during H1B presence' issue.
I dont know much about L1 but yours seems perfectly suited for an L1 and I believe L1 can have immigrant intent too. Any reason you cant go on to L1?
Ideally for the purpose of meetings etc, they should be using the B visa, especially when they have not sponsored an immigrant petition. But in your case, you have an immigrant intent so I guess a H or L is the way to go. Please consult an attorney as I have no idea about what implications your Canadian pay setup will have over the 'pay prevailing wages during H1B presence' issue.
I dont know much about L1 but yours seems perfectly suited for an L1 and I believe L1 can have immigrant intent too. Any reason you cant go on to L1?
Ramba
05-22 12:22 PM
Filing 485 after june 10 may not help much. Because, state deprtment will move the date based on number of 485 approval (already filed before retrogression) by june first week, not by number of new 485s recived by june first week.
However, it is a good idea. Perhaps this time they may moniter the number of 485 recived on or before june 10. Unlike H1B, one can submit the new 485 on or before june 30. No need to rush.
However, it is a good idea. Perhaps this time they may moniter the number of 485 recived on or before june 10. Unlike H1B, one can submit the new 485 on or before june 30. No need to rush.
2011 asilica di San Marco 3.jpg
sevenm
12-09 02:09 PM
The fiscal year starts in October 2007. Although you can apply from April 1, 2007 you can start working on October 1, 2007. You have to maintain legal status until October 1. Yor apllication for H1B does not guarantee you legal status before october 1.
more...
desi3933
05-21 06:40 AM
My past post on this issue
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=322561&postcount=11
Thread on that topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5450
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=322561&postcount=11
Thread on that topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5450
bobzibub
10-06 01:27 PM
Attempting to get USCIS to post a page like that would be like squeezing blood from a stone.
Example: When AILA asked USCIS whether moonlighting on an 485 derived EAD voids your H1-B (when you also keep your main job) seven months ago, they "take it under advice" but haven't bothered to answer the question. I've asked my lawyers and they are unwilling to say either way because they think USCIS could rule on it some day.
Leadership. They've heard of it.
Example: When AILA asked USCIS whether moonlighting on an 485 derived EAD voids your H1-B (when you also keep your main job) seven months ago, they "take it under advice" but haven't bothered to answer the question. I've asked my lawyers and they are unwilling to say either way because they think USCIS could rule on it some day.
Leadership. They've heard of it.
more...
tonyHK12
01-11 09:28 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
2010 at Basilica di San Marco
mwin
08-17 02:14 PM
I485 will be accepted, if all other things are good.
Don't worry about EAD and AP, if it gets rejected you can always re-apply. You can apply for these any time during 485 stage. Aug 17 does not apply here. Of course you have to pay the new fees.
Don't worry about EAD and AP, if it gets rejected you can always re-apply. You can apply for these any time during 485 stage. Aug 17 does not apply here. Of course you have to pay the new fees.
more...
number30
11-18 08:13 PM
Did that H1B got approved later?
hair San Marco Basilica chapel
go_guy123
04-15 10:01 AM
What were you doing for six months and you also co-operated with your employer. Along with your employer you should be thrown into jail. Because of you people only every one is in trouble. Yes, the DOL will and should take action against you also. By the way are you an anti-immigrant.
You have created six threads with the same question and getting the same answer. Please use your brain.
snathan, I also agree. This post doesn't sound genuine
You have created six threads with the same question and getting the same answer. Please use your brain.
snathan, I also agree. This post doesn't sound genuine
more...
anilsal
07-30 06:36 AM
W2s to indicate annual salaries in the last 1-3 years such that they know that you made at least as much as the labor application said.
hot Basilica di San Marco,
aachoo
02-21 01:33 AM
You are not alone�
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
My job is in the same company, same classification etc. I am not worried about that. The problem (I guess the GC mess can make you twist the best things into problems) is the $40K+ in raises I have received since then...
-a
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
My job is in the same company, same classification etc. I am not worried about that. The problem (I guess the GC mess can make you twist the best things into problems) is the $40K+ in raises I have received since then...
-a
more...
house San Marco Basilica,
Sp�rL
05-06 07:31 AM
AHHHHHH! brain malfunction!! ..... kidding!
Whats with all the gay tutorials???
all of them basically say "copy and paste this, ill tell you what it is later" and then not go indepth on all of the code.
i think ill look at that IMHO stuff :S
^Don't lie to him. Spyrl your going to need to remove your current DX9 card or DX10 card and put in a DX7 when your testing. lol i wasnt thinking at the time and only reliesed what i said later. (lol silly me)
and btw i was using that slide out menu as an example.
Whats with all the gay tutorials???
all of them basically say "copy and paste this, ill tell you what it is later" and then not go indepth on all of the code.
i think ill look at that IMHO stuff :S
^Don't lie to him. Spyrl your going to need to remove your current DX9 card or DX10 card and put in a DX7 when your testing. lol i wasnt thinking at the time and only reliesed what i said later. (lol silly me)
and btw i was using that slide out menu as an example.
tattoo St. Mark#39;s Basilica San Marco
godbless
06-29 11:28 AM
Is there any quota on filing the I 140s? My friend requested his employer for upgrading his 140 and he says that the attorney mentioned that the quota for I 140 is already full. I don't think it is right. Any inromation please.
more...
pictures Basilica+san+marco+venice
gantilk
04-27 11:26 PM
Thanks Desertfox. Did you send any supporting documents. there were contradicting opinions on whether to send or not send any additional documentation after e-filing EAD. Please let us know what you sent or not sent?
dresses the Basilica of San Marco
gsc999
01-18 02:09 PM
waiting, just sent you a pm with details.
Guys, couple of things:
- If you are trying to join the Nor. Cal. Yahoo group, please include your phone number in your request.
- I have added a poll to get a better idea on the number of people
- Feel free to bring your spouse/kids/friends to this event
Cheers!
Guys, couple of things:
- If you are trying to join the Nor. Cal. Yahoo group, please include your phone number in your request.
- I have added a poll to get a better idea on the number of people
- Feel free to bring your spouse/kids/friends to this event
Cheers!
more...
makeup Venezia, Basilica di San Marco
ssnd03
03-04 04:59 PM
What about the thousands who lost 2-4 years because they were stuck in namecheck, now the name check is cleared but the dates will not move..frigging idiots..too little too late
Before giving the blue/green/red dots, think about this. they created a traffic jam and now they are suddenly releasing it. There were about 150-300k stuck in name check, now all of them are waiting for their PD to be current. (i am one of them too). Think how this will affect the overall queue.
Priority dates were current before early 2005 due to FBI namecheck delays and other processing delays. Hence, EB visa numbers were always underused (and lost). If these processing delays were not so much back then, retrogression would have happened earlier, because there is always more demand than supply for EB visa numbers.
Retrogression can only be resolved by increasing visa numbers and/or recapture of lost visa numbers. Retrogression has nothing to do with FBI namecheck delays. In fact FBI namecheck delays masked the retrogression for one or two years.
We should be happy that namecheck delays are over for now and will restore some degree of FIFO.
Before giving the blue/green/red dots, think about this. they created a traffic jam and now they are suddenly releasing it. There were about 150-300k stuck in name check, now all of them are waiting for their PD to be current. (i am one of them too). Think how this will affect the overall queue.
Priority dates were current before early 2005 due to FBI namecheck delays and other processing delays. Hence, EB visa numbers were always underused (and lost). If these processing delays were not so much back then, retrogression would have happened earlier, because there is always more demand than supply for EB visa numbers.
Retrogression can only be resolved by increasing visa numbers and/or recapture of lost visa numbers. Retrogression has nothing to do with FBI namecheck delays. In fact FBI namecheck delays masked the retrogression for one or two years.
We should be happy that namecheck delays are over for now and will restore some degree of FIFO.
girlfriend Piazza San Marco: 1723-24
Rinsuper
01-18 03:44 PM
Hi, I am Rina, residing near LA, CA and working close with Niloufer in TX as volunteer. I cant attend meeting, but if you provide me list of ppl to contact on phone, i can inform them abt this meeting.
Let me know how to go about.
Let me know how to go about.
hairstyles Piazza San Marco amp; Basilica
GCOP
04-20 02:47 PM
I recently renewed our passports at Indian Embassy, Washington D.C . I sent 2"X2" size photographs and there was no problem in passport renewal.
go_guy123
11-03 06:57 PM
I disagree. I think that we will see an another attempt at CIR bill. Dems will want to capitalize on their surge among the hispanic bloc; see the comments by Nancy Palosi [sp?]. An attempt will be made to cast it as an aid for economy: to bring people out of shadows so that they can buy houses etc.
But then this is just my opinion which, like yours, is just an opinion. Heck even my 5 year old these days does not seem to hold my opinion in any regard :)
Thats the concern. CIR pits illegals vs legals. The CIR bill allocates quotas from legals to illegals.
But then this is just my opinion which, like yours, is just an opinion. Heck even my 5 year old these days does not seem to hold my opinion in any regard :)
Thats the concern. CIR pits illegals vs legals. The CIR bill allocates quotas from legals to illegals.
anilsal
12-21 12:02 AM
Hi Msyedy,
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
Pradeep, can you post your credentials that entitled you to NIW(EB2). Just curious. You have a PhD?
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
Pradeep, can you post your credentials that entitled you to NIW(EB2). Just curious. You have a PhD?
No comments:
Post a Comment