EndlessWait
06-18 04:54 PM
Mr. EndlessWait -
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Is the visa number the red colored number on the visa stamp or something else?
thanks
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Is the visa number the red colored number on the visa stamp or something else?
thanks
wallpaper example resume formats,
learning01
04-12 12:33 PM
As I had already posted in the news article thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=8552&postcount=225), this is an exhaustive article with a bold and thought provoking headlines. The article can be accessed here - http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/427793.html
Many skilled foreigners leaving U.S.
Exodus rooted in backlog for permanent status
Karin Rives, Staff Writer
When the Senate immigration bill fell apart last week, it did more than stymie efforts to deal with illegal immigration.
It derailed efforts to deal with an equally vexing business concern: a backlog in applications for so-called green cards, the coveted cards that are actually pink or white and that offer proof of lawful permanent residency.
Many people now wait six years or longer for the card. There are 526,000 applications pending, according to Immigration Voice, an advocacy group that tracks government data.
Lately, this has prompted an exodus of foreign workers who tired of waiting, to return home or go further afield. With the economies in Asia and elsewhere on the rise, they can easily find work in the native countries or in third nations that are more generous with their visas.
"You have China, Russia, India -- a lot of countries where you can go and make a lot of money. That's the biggest thing that has changed," said Murali Bashyam, a Raleigh immigration lawyer who helps companies sponsor immigrants. "Before, people were willing to wait it out. Now they can do just as well going back home, and they do."
Mike Plueddeman said he lost three employees (one a senior programmer with a doctorate) at Durham-based DynPro in the past two years because they tired of waiting for their green cards.
All three found good jobs in their home countries within a few weeks of leaving Durham, said Plueddeman, the software consultancy's human resource director.
"We are talking about very well-educated and highly skilled people who have been in the labor force a long time," he said. "You hate losing them."
This budding brain drain comes as the first American baby boomers retire and projections show a huge need for such professionals in the years ahead. U.S. universities graduate about 70,000 information technology students annually. Many people say that number won't meet the need for a projected 600,000 additional openings for information systems professionals between 2002 and 2012, and the openings made by retirements.
"We just don't have the pipeline right now," said Joe Freddoso, director of Cisco Systems' Research Triangle Park operations. "We are concerned there's going to be a shortage, and we're already seeing that in some areas."
Cisco has advertised an opening for a data-security specialist in Atlanta for several months, unable to find the right candidate. Freddoso believes the problem will spread unless the government allows more foreign workers to enter the country, and expedites their residency process.
However, not everybody believes in the labor shortage that corporations fret about.
Critics say that proposals to allow more skilled workers into the country would only depress wages and displace American-born workers who have yet to fully recover from the dot-com bust.
"We should only issue work-related visas if we really need them," said Caroline Espinosa, a spokeswoman with NumbersUSA, a Washington, D.C., group pushing for immigration reduction. "There are 2.5 million native born American workers in the math and computer field who are currently out of work. It begs the question whether we truly need foreign workers."
She added that the immigration backlog would be aggravated by raising the cap for temporary and permanent visas, which would make it harder for those who deserve to immigrate to do so.
Waiting since 2003
Sarath Chandrand, 44, a software consultant from India, moved with his wife and two young daughters from Raleigh to Toronto in December because he couldn't live with more uncertainty. He applied for his green card in early 2003 and expects it will take at least two more years to get it.
His former employer continues to sponsor his application for permanent residency, hoping that he will eventually return. But Chandrand doesn't know what the future will hold.
"I miss Raleigh, the weather, the people," he said in a phone interview. "But it's a very difficult decision to make, once you've settled in a country, to move out. You go through a lot of mental strain. Making another move will be difficult."
Canada won him over because its residency process takes only a year and a half and doesn't require sponsorship from an employer.
The competition from Canada also worries Plueddeman, who said several of his employees are also applying for residency in both countries. "They'll go with whoever comes first," he said.
And it's not just India and Canada that beckon. New Zealand and Australia are among nations that actively market themselves to professionals in the United States, with perks such as an easy process to get work visas.
New Zealand, with a population of 4 million, has received more than 1,900 applications from skilled migrants and their families in the past two years, said Don Badman, the Los Angeles marketing director for that country's immigration agency. Of those, about 17 percent were non-Americans working in the United States.
Badman's team has hired a public relations agency to get the word out. They have also run ads in West Coast newspapers and attended trade shows, mainly to attract professionals in health care and information technology.
Dana Hutchison, an operating room nurse from Cedar Mountain south of Asheville, could have joined a hospital in the United States that offers fat sign-on bonuses. Instead, she's in the small town of Tauranga, east of Auckland, working alongside New Zealand nurses and doctors.
"It would be hard for me to work in the U.S. again," she said. Where she is now, "the working conditions are so fabulous. Everybody is friendly and much less stressed. It's like the U.S. was in the 1960s."
Limit of 140,000
Getting a green card was never a quick process. The official limit for employment-based green cards is 140,000 annually.
And there is a bottleneck of technology professionals from India and China. They hold many, if not most, of all temporary work visas, and many try to convert their work visa to permanent residency, and eventually full citizenship. But under current rules, no single nationality can be allotted more than 7 percent of the green cards.
In his February economic report, President Bush outlined proposals to overhaul the system for employment-based green cards:
* Open more slots by exempting spouses and children from the annual limit of 140,000 green cards. Such dependents now make up about half of all green card recipients, because workers sponsored by employers can include their family in the application.
* Replace the current cap with a "flexible market-based cap" that responds to the need that employers have for foreign workers.
* Raise the 7 percent limit for nations such as India that have many highly skilled workers.
After steady lobbying from technology companies, Congress is also paying more attention to the issue. The Senate immigration bill had proposed raising the annual cap for green cards to 290,000.
Kumar Gupta, a 33-year-old software engineer, has been watching the legislative proposals as he weighs his options. After six years in the United States, he is considering returning to India after learning that the green card he applied for in November 2004 could take another four or five years.
Being on a temporary work visa means that he cannot leave his job. Nor does he want to buy a home for his family without knowing he will stay in the country.
"Even if the job market is not as good as here, you can get a very good salary in India," he said. "If I have offers there, I will think of moving."
Let's utilize this write up and start quoting the link in our personal comments / emails to other news anchors, commentators, blogs etc.
I thought this deserves it's own thread. Please comment and act.
Many skilled foreigners leaving U.S.
Exodus rooted in backlog for permanent status
Karin Rives, Staff Writer
When the Senate immigration bill fell apart last week, it did more than stymie efforts to deal with illegal immigration.
It derailed efforts to deal with an equally vexing business concern: a backlog in applications for so-called green cards, the coveted cards that are actually pink or white and that offer proof of lawful permanent residency.
Many people now wait six years or longer for the card. There are 526,000 applications pending, according to Immigration Voice, an advocacy group that tracks government data.
Lately, this has prompted an exodus of foreign workers who tired of waiting, to return home or go further afield. With the economies in Asia and elsewhere on the rise, they can easily find work in the native countries or in third nations that are more generous with their visas.
"You have China, Russia, India -- a lot of countries where you can go and make a lot of money. That's the biggest thing that has changed," said Murali Bashyam, a Raleigh immigration lawyer who helps companies sponsor immigrants. "Before, people were willing to wait it out. Now they can do just as well going back home, and they do."
Mike Plueddeman said he lost three employees (one a senior programmer with a doctorate) at Durham-based DynPro in the past two years because they tired of waiting for their green cards.
All three found good jobs in their home countries within a few weeks of leaving Durham, said Plueddeman, the software consultancy's human resource director.
"We are talking about very well-educated and highly skilled people who have been in the labor force a long time," he said. "You hate losing them."
This budding brain drain comes as the first American baby boomers retire and projections show a huge need for such professionals in the years ahead. U.S. universities graduate about 70,000 information technology students annually. Many people say that number won't meet the need for a projected 600,000 additional openings for information systems professionals between 2002 and 2012, and the openings made by retirements.
"We just don't have the pipeline right now," said Joe Freddoso, director of Cisco Systems' Research Triangle Park operations. "We are concerned there's going to be a shortage, and we're already seeing that in some areas."
Cisco has advertised an opening for a data-security specialist in Atlanta for several months, unable to find the right candidate. Freddoso believes the problem will spread unless the government allows more foreign workers to enter the country, and expedites their residency process.
However, not everybody believes in the labor shortage that corporations fret about.
Critics say that proposals to allow more skilled workers into the country would only depress wages and displace American-born workers who have yet to fully recover from the dot-com bust.
"We should only issue work-related visas if we really need them," said Caroline Espinosa, a spokeswoman with NumbersUSA, a Washington, D.C., group pushing for immigration reduction. "There are 2.5 million native born American workers in the math and computer field who are currently out of work. It begs the question whether we truly need foreign workers."
She added that the immigration backlog would be aggravated by raising the cap for temporary and permanent visas, which would make it harder for those who deserve to immigrate to do so.
Waiting since 2003
Sarath Chandrand, 44, a software consultant from India, moved with his wife and two young daughters from Raleigh to Toronto in December because he couldn't live with more uncertainty. He applied for his green card in early 2003 and expects it will take at least two more years to get it.
His former employer continues to sponsor his application for permanent residency, hoping that he will eventually return. But Chandrand doesn't know what the future will hold.
"I miss Raleigh, the weather, the people," he said in a phone interview. "But it's a very difficult decision to make, once you've settled in a country, to move out. You go through a lot of mental strain. Making another move will be difficult."
Canada won him over because its residency process takes only a year and a half and doesn't require sponsorship from an employer.
The competition from Canada also worries Plueddeman, who said several of his employees are also applying for residency in both countries. "They'll go with whoever comes first," he said.
And it's not just India and Canada that beckon. New Zealand and Australia are among nations that actively market themselves to professionals in the United States, with perks such as an easy process to get work visas.
New Zealand, with a population of 4 million, has received more than 1,900 applications from skilled migrants and their families in the past two years, said Don Badman, the Los Angeles marketing director for that country's immigration agency. Of those, about 17 percent were non-Americans working in the United States.
Badman's team has hired a public relations agency to get the word out. They have also run ads in West Coast newspapers and attended trade shows, mainly to attract professionals in health care and information technology.
Dana Hutchison, an operating room nurse from Cedar Mountain south of Asheville, could have joined a hospital in the United States that offers fat sign-on bonuses. Instead, she's in the small town of Tauranga, east of Auckland, working alongside New Zealand nurses and doctors.
"It would be hard for me to work in the U.S. again," she said. Where she is now, "the working conditions are so fabulous. Everybody is friendly and much less stressed. It's like the U.S. was in the 1960s."
Limit of 140,000
Getting a green card was never a quick process. The official limit for employment-based green cards is 140,000 annually.
And there is a bottleneck of technology professionals from India and China. They hold many, if not most, of all temporary work visas, and many try to convert their work visa to permanent residency, and eventually full citizenship. But under current rules, no single nationality can be allotted more than 7 percent of the green cards.
In his February economic report, President Bush outlined proposals to overhaul the system for employment-based green cards:
* Open more slots by exempting spouses and children from the annual limit of 140,000 green cards. Such dependents now make up about half of all green card recipients, because workers sponsored by employers can include their family in the application.
* Replace the current cap with a "flexible market-based cap" that responds to the need that employers have for foreign workers.
* Raise the 7 percent limit for nations such as India that have many highly skilled workers.
After steady lobbying from technology companies, Congress is also paying more attention to the issue. The Senate immigration bill had proposed raising the annual cap for green cards to 290,000.
Kumar Gupta, a 33-year-old software engineer, has been watching the legislative proposals as he weighs his options. After six years in the United States, he is considering returning to India after learning that the green card he applied for in November 2004 could take another four or five years.
Being on a temporary work visa means that he cannot leave his job. Nor does he want to buy a home for his family without knowing he will stay in the country.
"Even if the job market is not as good as here, you can get a very good salary in India," he said. "If I have offers there, I will think of moving."
Let's utilize this write up and start quoting the link in our personal comments / emails to other news anchors, commentators, blogs etc.
I thought this deserves it's own thread. Please comment and act.
ita
01-16 05:21 PM
They transferred me to the immigration sub committee's office after asking my name and the reason I was calling. I got the sub committee's VM again.
2011 Filed Under (Sample Resume) by
wandmaker
02-16 12:58 PM
Hi Everyone,
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
For Q1, Please call 1-866-487-2365
For Q2, Please call 1-800-375-5283
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
For Q1, Please call 1-866-487-2365
For Q2, Please call 1-800-375-5283
more...
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
rajuram
01-14 03:47 PM
It is just frustrating to visit these forums and see nothing is happening. We need more members and more money. But if that happens in 10 years, what is the use. Not much anyone can do. Might as well as start packing.
more...
Munna Bhai
07-12 09:08 AM
hello, any inputs
2010 simple resume samples. simple
kondur_007
03-29 09:12 PM
Thanks you very much for the reply.I appreciate.
Yes, Thats perfectly right.
Extension with Employer A is pending, reason is Security CheckThats what i was told and can't be done any thing untill they get back).
Yeah I am planning to go to India and try to get stamped there. But am just wondering that as the Extension with Employer A is in security check so does this cause any issues/delay in giving Visa in india.
I personally think (I am not a lawyer), the delay with your current employer's (employer A) petition for extension is very likely to be "employer" (who is probably under review) rather than "you". (the reason I believe that is the fact that they approved your H1b with another employer; so if it is security check on "you", that would not have happened.).
So if my assumption is correct, you should not have any trouble in getting visa stamped for "employer B" (new employer, with new H1b approval that you have - the one that came without I94),
Good Luck. (If at all possible, do one consultation with a competent attorney who can review all the facts, trust me, your money will be worth)
Yes, Thats perfectly right.
Extension with Employer A is pending, reason is Security CheckThats what i was told and can't be done any thing untill they get back).
Yeah I am planning to go to India and try to get stamped there. But am just wondering that as the Extension with Employer A is in security check so does this cause any issues/delay in giving Visa in india.
I personally think (I am not a lawyer), the delay with your current employer's (employer A) petition for extension is very likely to be "employer" (who is probably under review) rather than "you". (the reason I believe that is the fact that they approved your H1b with another employer; so if it is security check on "you", that would not have happened.).
So if my assumption is correct, you should not have any trouble in getting visa stamped for "employer B" (new employer, with new H1b approval that you have - the one that came without I94),
Good Luck. (If at all possible, do one consultation with a competent attorney who can review all the facts, trust me, your money will be worth)
more...
browncow
03-12 10:31 PM
congrats.
hair Sample resume format 1
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvf0BcfjODBUsyE7tQEZUxR0-LgCJFUIwnGeSb61WAJxOpCWDH7-trJlusMvjOa8qBljCHN3fHu5MQoh_VVBQ9FMQbYHSTUzpfPwQoOaZURfXbA7bUUTO0ZFh25RFUO39gYKxRhFGr0Mk/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvf0BcfjODBUsyE7tQEZUxR0-LgCJFUIwnGeSb61WAJxOpCWDH7-trJlusMvjOa8qBljCHN3fHu5MQoh_VVBQ9FMQbYHSTUzpfPwQoOaZURfXbA7bUUTO0ZFh25RFUO39gYKxRhFGr0Mk/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvf0BcfjODBUsyE7tQEZUxR0-LgCJFUIwnGeSb61WAJxOpCWDH7-trJlusMvjOa8qBljCHN3fHu5MQoh_VVBQ9FMQbYHSTUzpfPwQoOaZURfXbA7bUUTO0ZFh25RFUO39gYKxRhFGr0Mk/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvf0BcfjODBUsyE7tQEZUxR0-LgCJFUIwnGeSb61WAJxOpCWDH7-trJlusMvjOa8qBljCHN3fHu5MQoh_VVBQ9FMQbYHSTUzpfPwQoOaZURfXbA7bUUTO0ZFh25RFUO39gYKxRhFGr0Mk/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
more...
amsgc
04-08 08:02 PM
Yes we are working on it and will be enhancing it. Please keep adding your details to it.
The least people could do is put in their country of chargeability, and PD. It is just silly to see country of chargeability as US! Lets get serious people!
The least people could do is put in their country of chargeability, and PD. It is just silly to see country of chargeability as US! Lets get serious people!
hot The next four examples use
Loruoo26
02-14 12:47 PM
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. When it comes to opinions, though, there's a difference between the majority wow gold (http://www.wowpl.de), of people and celebrities like actors, athletes, and rock stars. If you're an average person, only your family and friends care about your opinion. If you’re famous, the whole world listens, or so it seems sometimes. Is this the way if should be? I don't think so. We shouldn't pay attention to famous people's opinions just because of who they are. Being a famous basketball player doesn't make someone an expert on environmental issues. However, that basketball player has a better opportunity to be heard than most wow gold (http://www.wowleveln.de), people do. If that player feels very strongly about an issue, he can use his fame to draw attention to it and get other people involved. That way they can saw attention and needed dollars to that issue. People who are rich put their money behind a cause. In the same way, famous people are using their most valuable asset. In their case, it's not money. It's their name recognition. Should people pay attention to what they think just because of who maple story powerleveling (http://www.maplestorymesosshop.com/maple-story-power-leveling.asp), they are? I don’t think so. I also don't think we should discount what they think just because of who they are. They have a right to their opinion. If their name draws people to that cause, all the better for the cause. I think too often we categories people and try to keep them in their place. maple story powerleveling (http://www.maplestorymesosstore.com/maple-story-power-leveling.asp), Celebrities have brains and should be allowed to use them. When they're advocating a cause, their opinion should be just one of many factors we use to evaluate that cause.Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. When maple story powerleveling (http://www.mesosoon.com/maple-story-power-leveling.asp),it comes to opinions, though, there's a difference between the majority of people and celebrities like actors, athletes, and rock stars. If you're an average person, only your family and friends care about your opinion. If you’re famous, the whole world listens, or so it seems sometimes. Is this the way if should be? I don't think so. We shouldn't pay attention to famous people's opinions just because of who they are. Being a famous basketball player doesn't make someone an expert on environmental issues. However, that basketball player has a better opportunity to be heard than most people do. If that player feels very strongly about an issue, he can use his fame to draw attention to it and get other people involved. That way they can saw attention and needed dollars to that issue. People who are rich put their money behind a cause. In the same way, famous people are using their most valuable asset. In their case, it's not money. It's their name recognition. Should people pay attention to what they think just because of who they are? I don’t think so. I also don't think we should discount what they think just because of who they are. They have a right to their opinion. If their name draws people to that cause, all the better for the cause. I think too often we categories people and try to keep them in their place. Celebrities have brains and should be allowed to use them. When they're advocating a cause, their opinion should be just one of many factors we use to evaluate that cause.
more...
house example resume formats,
cbpds
08-03 06:27 PM
you missed on one fav diet control idea ---drinking Green tea :)
tattoo RESUME EXAMPLES
suratvoice
12-17 11:06 AM
Have you checked the job codes for the two jobs ? Just given this information, the new role does look similar. However, I would run this by an attorney just to be safe.
Where can I find these job codes, I can lookup the old job code because I have the 750, but for the new one, where can i find that, I just have the company's job posting...
Where can I find these job codes, I can lookup the old job code because I have the 750, but for the new one, where can i find that, I just have the company's job posting...
more...
pictures Resume Examples
fromnaija
03-18 05:11 PM
I Have my EAD card but my spouse was in India when i applied for EAD. That mean she doesn't have EAD card rite now.
Can she get EAD or SSN?
Pls help.....
Unless you submitted I-485 for her she cannot apply for EAD. If you did submit I-485, yes you can apply EAD for her now by submitting form I-765.
Can she get EAD or SSN?
Pls help.....
Unless you submitted I-485 for her she cannot apply for EAD. If you did submit I-485, yes you can apply EAD for her now by submitting form I-765.
dresses under Resume Samples.
ita
01-16 05:21 PM
They transferred me to the immigration sub committee's office after asking my name and the reason I was calling. I got the sub committee's VM again.
more...
makeup free resume examples,
manand24
08-03 12:17 PM
Well atleast we arent alone I guess
Hopefully we will get them soon! Keeping fingers crossed! Just imagine the wait times for AP, EAD and eventually GC. Just forget about it!
Hopefully we will get them soon! Keeping fingers crossed! Just imagine the wait times for AP, EAD and eventually GC. Just forget about it!
girlfriend resume letter examples.
rajmehrotra
12-21 02:07 PM
First we need to contact the madam @ 10 Janpath. Without her choreography Papa singh won't dance and neither will the daughter.
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
Please think:
A. WHY will ACLU assist us? Only because Ms. Singh is there?
B. WHY should Dr. Singh or Mrs. Gandhi assist us? We are trying to emigrate FROM India, NOT immigrate to India, after all.
C. Please do not formulate random "minority community" statements. It is kind of ironic to do so, given the fact that we, the EB immigrants, are usually parts of various minority communities in the U.S., and are desperately trying to make our case to the power structure here...
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
Please think:
A. WHY will ACLU assist us? Only because Ms. Singh is there?
B. WHY should Dr. Singh or Mrs. Gandhi assist us? We are trying to emigrate FROM India, NOT immigrate to India, after all.
C. Please do not formulate random "minority community" statements. It is kind of ironic to do so, given the fact that we, the EB immigrants, are usually parts of various minority communities in the U.S., and are desperately trying to make our case to the power structure here...
hairstyles free resume examples,
Hassan11
03-26 11:34 AM
Thanks Kingkon. I heard the appeal takes no more than a year. but DOL in Atlanta keeps telling my HR manager that they are backlogged. I am not sure what to do.
I had my EB2 LC rejected and the reason that DOL gave was they were not able to contact the employer and/or employer did not respond to their correspondence. Lawyer gave me two option to refile (I will lose PD) or appeal. This was in 2005 when PERM had just started and the lawyers said they did not know how long the appeal process takes in PERM since it was new system. To cut the story short I received the approved LC within 45days of appeal, but my case was a simple one I think. Your case it a bit different but in no case an appeal should take 1.5 years at least in PERM.
I had my EB2 LC rejected and the reason that DOL gave was they were not able to contact the employer and/or employer did not respond to their correspondence. Lawyer gave me two option to refile (I will lose PD) or appeal. This was in 2005 when PERM had just started and the lawyers said they did not know how long the appeal process takes in PERM since it was new system. To cut the story short I received the approved LC within 45days of appeal, but my case was a simple one I think. Your case it a bit different but in no case an appeal should take 1.5 years at least in PERM.
Libra
08-31 12:01 PM
All midwest members please go to this thread and cast your vote
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12599
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12599
gchopes
07-30 08:10 PM
We may cross 2001 and enter into begining 2002.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий