arukala
01-30 12:33 AM
Thank You so much TwinkleM for your answers
-Ravi
-Ravi
wallpaper eyes were on Heidi Klum at
CantLeaveAmerica
04-16 02:08 PM
Trust me. That's a move you will surely enjoy....I moved in the opposite direction.......Houston to Allentown
Houston is the best. Lovely weather, Really "BIG" city so you can get or do whatever you want. The metro system is not the best but if you only need it to commute to work(downtown) then no problem. By the way they don't give a crap about driver's licenses in houston, too many applications. They'll give you 6yrs easily on ur license.
Yep, dont worry about DL in texas, I renewed my TX license over the internet for 6 years, till 2013:)
Houston is the best. Lovely weather, Really "BIG" city so you can get or do whatever you want. The metro system is not the best but if you only need it to commute to work(downtown) then no problem. By the way they don't give a crap about driver's licenses in houston, too many applications. They'll give you 6yrs easily on ur license.
Yep, dont worry about DL in texas, I renewed my TX license over the internet for 6 years, till 2013:)
meridiani.planum
12-19 12:45 AM
There's a quite a misconception that if h1 is canceled, it cannot be extended. It's nothing like that. Your friend can file for visa transfer (pay extra for premium processing) and get it in two weeks.
The only time you have to file a new H1 is when you leave US and remain outside for a year. Otherwise an transfer is all you need. This misconception is very widespread. Rajiv Khanna was at pains to try to exterminate this in one of his tele-conferences.
Anyhow, at this point, your friend should be talking to an attorney instead of having you make a post at this forum.
seconding this post. the H1 is still valid. It can be extended. The only two potential troubles are:
1. its been quite some time since your friend was last in status (Sept) so USCIS will liekly issue an RFE (do the transfer in premium processing) and will approve the H1 but not the updated status (you will get an I797 without an I94 at the bottom). If that happens your friend will need to leave the US and return (any border, need not go to home country) to activate teh H1.
2. if your friend stays out of status for >6 months it can impact his eligibility for greencard down the line.
The only time you have to file a new H1 is when you leave US and remain outside for a year. Otherwise an transfer is all you need. This misconception is very widespread. Rajiv Khanna was at pains to try to exterminate this in one of his tele-conferences.
Anyhow, at this point, your friend should be talking to an attorney instead of having you make a post at this forum.
seconding this post. the H1 is still valid. It can be extended. The only two potential troubles are:
1. its been quite some time since your friend was last in status (Sept) so USCIS will liekly issue an RFE (do the transfer in premium processing) and will approve the H1 but not the updated status (you will get an I797 without an I94 at the bottom). If that happens your friend will need to leave the US and return (any border, need not go to home country) to activate teh H1.
2. if your friend stays out of status for >6 months it can impact his eligibility for greencard down the line.
2011 Updo heidi klum hair
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
485Question
10-29 03:21 PM
Give a try if they can update it.
jlander
January 7th, 2005, 07:24 PM
I learned somewhere that extreme closup macro (2:1) shots can be taken by mating another lens in reverse to the front of the lens mounted to the camera. Does anyone have any idea what makes a good combination of lenses and what is needed?
I have an old canon 52mm manual focus lens that is in great shape.
I have an old canon 52mm manual focus lens that is in great shape.
more...
smuggymba
09-16 07:45 PM
Here is the scenario.
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
Imagine if everyone uses bold font:mad:
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
Imagine if everyone uses bold font:mad:
2010 heidi klum updo styles. heidi
mzafar125
05-11 12:39 PM
Hello,
I am trying to file by I-485 paperwork and the only roadblock is the birth certificate. I called the Pakistani embassy and they said they would issue me with a letter stating my name, DOB, father and mothers name. Can someone for the love of god let me know if this will be acceptable to the dept of homeland security ?
This is the last hurdle I have to pass before I can file my I-485 so I would appreciate any feedback. You lot have a good weekend and thanks for all your efforts.
Thanks!
I am trying to file by I-485 paperwork and the only roadblock is the birth certificate. I called the Pakistani embassy and they said they would issue me with a letter stating my name, DOB, father and mothers name. Can someone for the love of god let me know if this will be acceptable to the dept of homeland security ?
This is the last hurdle I have to pass before I can file my I-485 so I would appreciate any feedback. You lot have a good weekend and thanks for all your efforts.
Thanks!
more...
sonia_sd
02-11 09:11 PM
Please forward this to everyone who are in the queue
hair heidi klum hair updo.
GCapplicant
02-01 07:57 PM
We had a similar problem during Dec 06 - Our bill came around 400 ...We reside in NJ...
We were surprised because we spent almost 20 days in Florida.
when we called our provider there wasn't much help ,they never accepted that it was a fault.
I immediately took a picture of my reading from the meter ,and gave copies to them and old bills of the last two years winter.
Then thet agreed not to charge for three months.
So check your meter...and previous bills usage ...for comparison...
But where were you at a stretch all those months??
We were surprised because we spent almost 20 days in Florida.
when we called our provider there wasn't much help ,they never accepted that it was a fault.
I immediately took a picture of my reading from the meter ,and gave copies to them and old bills of the last two years winter.
Then thet agreed not to charge for three months.
So check your meter...and previous bills usage ...for comparison...
But where were you at a stretch all those months??
more...
rocket
01-08 03:20 PM
you guys are missing the point. contest rules have to be followed to the letter because they are a legal contract. if the rules state that the parents have to be legal residents then that's the way it is. if they decide to change the rules for the next contest due to political pressure , fine. but now they are opening themselves up to lawsuits for not following their own contract. i think it's funny how so many people are in favor of breaking the law as long as it suits their agenda. oh wait these are all people in favor of people breaking the law to come to america illegally. correct me if i'm wrong.
hot Heidi Klum at 2008 Academy
lsuk
07-21 07:17 PM
EAD is usually issued only for one year but USCIS has the option to issue EADs for a longer period of time based on this regulation:
"DHS on July 30, 2004 published an interim regulation that amends 8 CFR sec. 274a3. USCIS now has authority to issue EADs for periods greater than one year. This regulation recognizes the system is overburdened. However, USCIS has not implemented this reform probably due to the potential revenue loss."
Source: "Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook 2007 Edition", published by AILA
This can be done without changing the law. If USCIS is afraid to lose its revenue they can change for 2 or 3 years ahead. I believe this may be a good choice for people whose visa number will not be available for several years. Any comments?
"DHS on July 30, 2004 published an interim regulation that amends 8 CFR sec. 274a3. USCIS now has authority to issue EADs for periods greater than one year. This regulation recognizes the system is overburdened. However, USCIS has not implemented this reform probably due to the potential revenue loss."
Source: "Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook 2007 Edition", published by AILA
This can be done without changing the law. If USCIS is afraid to lose its revenue they can change for 2 or 3 years ahead. I believe this may be a good choice for people whose visa number will not be available for several years. Any comments?
more...
house heidi klum updo hairstyles.
dpsg
03-25 02:39 AM
We have our own agenda as they have theirs, But We can ask them to
correct information which is not correct. Otherwise we will create a parallel
graph and point their mistakes and they are free to correct ours.
If someone looks up on net, he/she should see correct information, If
someone searches numberUSA it should also see our site with correct graphs.
We should never fudge number to prove our point, Because we are real people with real issues, which affects our lives in real way ... not idealogues .. where ideaology is above everything(even nonrefutable hard facts or humanity).
I request people on this forum to be careful what they write, We should only
question the incorrectness of the statment without becoming personal , dis-respectful or vengeful, because our fight is born from need not from hatred.
All of us need to also further our qualifications and skills to show ourselves in best light and be able to show our achievents in constructive way to get the best deserved treatment from american lawmakers.And beleive me they
have shown time and again that they are pragmatic people, we just need to educate them about our issues..which
IV is doing in a great way.
Also we need to correct what they ahve said about us "guests don't want to go back" to point that we are here on dual intent.
Thanks,
correct information which is not correct. Otherwise we will create a parallel
graph and point their mistakes and they are free to correct ours.
If someone looks up on net, he/she should see correct information, If
someone searches numberUSA it should also see our site with correct graphs.
We should never fudge number to prove our point, Because we are real people with real issues, which affects our lives in real way ... not idealogues .. where ideaology is above everything(even nonrefutable hard facts or humanity).
I request people on this forum to be careful what they write, We should only
question the incorrectness of the statment without becoming personal , dis-respectful or vengeful, because our fight is born from need not from hatred.
All of us need to also further our qualifications and skills to show ourselves in best light and be able to show our achievents in constructive way to get the best deserved treatment from american lawmakers.And beleive me they
have shown time and again that they are pragmatic people, we just need to educate them about our issues..which
IV is doing in a great way.
Also we need to correct what they ahve said about us "guests don't want to go back" to point that we are here on dual intent.
Thanks,
tattoo Heidi Klum#39;s Best Hairstyles
go_guy123
09-06 11:31 PM
My company lawyers have been preparing for the last 5 months to file for my PERM application. After completing the recruitment stage and getting ready to file, they for some reason have come to the conclusion that the high number of resumes received could land the company in trouble for this case plus future applications.
Has anybody seen this before. Is there any precedence that a company that receives large number of resumes for the position might cause issues? Even if they have done the due diligence to review all resumes and interview candidates that they deemed fit? Still not finding anybody worthwhile?
Any comments/ assistance would be most appreciated.
Thanks
Your comany is doing it right. If there are qualified US applicants, how can they claim that
they didnt find a local candidate. What will they do if they get audited. Nowdays USCIS/DOL is auditing massively.
Unfortunately EB green card is a employer driven process and there is nothing you can do about it. US immigration system treats skilled immigration as lowest of the lowest priority.
Has anybody seen this before. Is there any precedence that a company that receives large number of resumes for the position might cause issues? Even if they have done the due diligence to review all resumes and interview candidates that they deemed fit? Still not finding anybody worthwhile?
Any comments/ assistance would be most appreciated.
Thanks
Your comany is doing it right. If there are qualified US applicants, how can they claim that
they didnt find a local candidate. What will they do if they get audited. Nowdays USCIS/DOL is auditing massively.
Unfortunately EB green card is a employer driven process and there is nothing you can do about it. US immigration system treats skilled immigration as lowest of the lowest priority.
more...
pictures hairstyles heidi klum
srinivas_o
09-16 02:41 PM
Thanks to all of you guys. Your responses makes me feel good about travelling to India. Once again, thank you.
dresses Wavy Updo Hairstyle Pictures
radhagd
03-14 09:36 AM
I have tried this and I got my application returned. I know one more person in this forum has tried and was not successful.
I think that EB3 has to be approved(not just applied) before EB2 approval
Yes EB3 140 has to be approved and file Eb2 140 by attaching EB3 approval notice. I did it in same way and got EB2 140 approved with Eb3 PD on it.
I think that EB3 has to be approved(not just applied) before EB2 approval
Yes EB3 140 has to be approved and file Eb2 140 by attaching EB3 approval notice. I did it in same way and got EB2 140 approved with Eb3 PD on it.
more...
makeup 2010 Heidi Kum#39;s Long Curly
Sakthisagar
08-06 02:14 PM
Is it a big blow for desi consulting firms??
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
All Politics, .. only senate approved this now Congress has to put on vote and pass this and The President has to Sign, then only this is a Law other wise this remains as a Proposal.
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
All Politics, .. only senate approved this now Congress has to put on vote and pass this and The President has to Sign, then only this is a Law other wise this remains as a Proposal.
girlfriend Updo heidi klum updo with
immi_enthu
08-28 11:28 AM
According to the legal assistant:
Traditional Labor:
Incase of substitution the beneficiary has to sign the approved labor. Otherwise it is not required.
PERM: Requires beneficiary's signature.
Thanks bond65
Traditional Labor:
Incase of substitution the beneficiary has to sign the approved labor. Otherwise it is not required.
PERM: Requires beneficiary's signature.
Thanks bond65
hairstyles heidi klum updo pics. heidi
sri1309
06-16 08:22 AM
HI,
I recently went for stamping in Canada and they did ask me recent paystubs.
I woudl work for the new company , have some paystubs and then go to neighboring country to get the stamping done. But if the current visa on passport is valid for some more time, I dont think its really needed to get visa from latest company. To my knowledge u can always use old stamp to travel, as long as you have the latest aproval petition and you carry with you,I may be wrong if somehting changed recently,
Thanks,
Sri.
Hi Shelar,
Thanks for your response.
I dont want to go to my home country for stamping. I'm residing in california so i want to go nearby country which is Tijauna, Mexico.
currently, my pay stubbs are still generated with old company (X). Now i've got I-797 approved from New company on June 6th,2006. Is it a must that i have to have at least couple of pay stubbs generated with new company before going for visa stamping
pls advise.
I recently went for stamping in Canada and they did ask me recent paystubs.
I woudl work for the new company , have some paystubs and then go to neighboring country to get the stamping done. But if the current visa on passport is valid for some more time, I dont think its really needed to get visa from latest company. To my knowledge u can always use old stamp to travel, as long as you have the latest aproval petition and you carry with you,I may be wrong if somehting changed recently,
Thanks,
Sri.
Hi Shelar,
Thanks for your response.
I dont want to go to my home country for stamping. I'm residing in california so i want to go nearby country which is Tijauna, Mexico.
currently, my pay stubbs are still generated with old company (X). Now i've got I-797 approved from New company on June 6th,2006. Is it a must that i have to have at least couple of pay stubbs generated with new company before going for visa stamping
pls advise.
vdixit
04-22 03:09 PM
Hello,
My company's HR rep informed me that my application was selected in this godforsaken lottery. however the validity dates of H1 have been screwed up. they say valid from Oct 1st 2008-Oct 1st 2008.
Now the lawyers are saying hopefully they will correct things before they mail out either the actual recipts or when they issue the visa. If this is not corrected they are going to apply for corrections.
I am a little worried, should they be waiting until the visa arrives or make a move now?
Has anyone faced this issue and if yes any advice on how to correct things.
My company's HR rep informed me that my application was selected in this godforsaken lottery. however the validity dates of H1 have been screwed up. they say valid from Oct 1st 2008-Oct 1st 2008.
Now the lawyers are saying hopefully they will correct things before they mail out either the actual recipts or when they issue the visa. If this is not corrected they are going to apply for corrections.
I am a little worried, should they be waiting until the visa arrives or make a move now?
Has anyone faced this issue and if yes any advice on how to correct things.
chanduv23
08-10 11:03 AM
Hello All
My employer paid me for my 485 application,he gave me his personal checks in the name of uscis, i applied with those checks, now i hear that
"The Address Printed On your checks Must Match the adress given in work sheets[in 485]"
I am confused,will they accept the application,checks are not cashed yet,applied on july18th
Please Help
R u sure? Mine don't match - where did u get this info?
My employer paid me for my 485 application,he gave me his personal checks in the name of uscis, i applied with those checks, now i hear that
"The Address Printed On your checks Must Match the adress given in work sheets[in 485]"
I am confused,will they accept the application,checks are not cashed yet,applied on july18th
Please Help
R u sure? Mine don't match - where did u get this info?
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий