english_august
08-24 10:22 AM
Call in waltz. 1-800-486-8655.
wallpaper Example of use | Dragon
espoir
11-08 03:47 PM
Although July Fiasco was for EB only, there was a rush to file AOS for family based as well because of USCIS Fee increase from July 31st. Unless USCIS comes out with stats, everything else is guessing game. I guess that we can have better estimate after 3 or 4 bulletins and based on its forward movement.
ngopalak
10-14 11:14 PM
Thanks for the info....sounds like a good idea!....I will ask my lawyer abt this...
You can go visit India after your AP has been applied for, and you can ask your lawyer ( if you are using one ) to send the docs to you in India , so that you can come back with the new approved AP, off course you can't enter USA on an expired AP.
My lawyer has confirmed that one is only required to be present in the USA when applying and it's recommended that one is in US when it's approved, but due to the varying time USCIS is taking to process AP applications that is not a requirement and they can forward the documents to someone not in US.
You can go visit India after your AP has been applied for, and you can ask your lawyer ( if you are using one ) to send the docs to you in India , so that you can come back with the new approved AP, off course you can't enter USA on an expired AP.
My lawyer has confirmed that one is only required to be present in the USA when applying and it's recommended that one is in US when it's approved, but due to the varying time USCIS is taking to process AP applications that is not a requirement and they can forward the documents to someone not in US.
2011 PA - Rock is Dead
don_don
06-25 08:43 AM
If I were you, I would wait till it is 1st of July. What if they reject it,,u loose more time than saving!
more...
yabadaba
06-01 01:54 PM
i dont get it...how come programmers guild gets a say in everything when they cant even get members to join or to even get people to be on their board of directors?
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
gcwait2007
06-29 11:58 PM
Chanduv23,
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
more...
Ramba
12-23 04:11 PM
If i-485 has been pending for more than 6 months and I suddenly get laid off can i leave the country and come back when it's approved? Or can I leave the country and come back in a few months with or without job offer?
No you cant do that. One should not leave country when 485 pending. Once you laid off from sponsor you can not do counsural processing also. Travelling in AP should be for a mimimum period. It will be big mistake, if you leave country without job offer. No one knows when they issue RFE for employment verification during your 485 pending period. If you do not have job when they issue RFE, thats it. Bottomline is, it is better to be employed during 485 pending and stay in the country to reply any RFE.
No you cant do that. One should not leave country when 485 pending. Once you laid off from sponsor you can not do counsural processing also. Travelling in AP should be for a mimimum period. It will be big mistake, if you leave country without job offer. No one knows when they issue RFE for employment verification during your 485 pending period. If you do not have job when they issue RFE, thats it. Bottomline is, it is better to be employed during 485 pending and stay in the country to reply any RFE.
2010 Jumpers 9, 11, and 13 set the
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
eb3_nepa
05-14 01:44 PM
Point taken.
I did look under the visa bulletin section of the forums, I did not see anything on pages 1 and 2 so I posted.
But, point taken.
Mocking me so much shows you in bad taste, my friends.
This is the last thing you will see me posting here.
And it is a "her".
You lied! ;). You posted one more time.
Fortunately or unfortunately on this forum, saying this is your last post doesnt make people become nicer to you :)
I did look under the visa bulletin section of the forums, I did not see anything on pages 1 and 2 so I posted.
But, point taken.
Mocking me so much shows you in bad taste, my friends.
This is the last thing you will see me posting here.
And it is a "her".
You lied! ;). You posted one more time.
Fortunately or unfortunately on this forum, saying this is your last post doesnt make people become nicer to you :)
hair Contributor#39;s location on
bigsky
10-17 06:43 PM
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department�s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750�s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750�s. The other set of 750�s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750�s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750�s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer�s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
This Notice of Findings is the Department�s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750�s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750�s. The other set of 750�s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750�s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750�s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer�s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
more...
gc28262
01-19 08:52 PM
Democrats lost it already. Brown wins
hot Heartbeats by Lady Gaga
Kodi
07-22 09:56 AM
I thought USCIS won't issue EAD without FP. Its not true?
more...
house Fish eyes make the perfect
mbawa2574
07-17 04:06 PM
These are government matters and you can only speculate based on information that comes out through unofficial resources. Looks like we have good resources for this information. Please wait for the official announcement.
tattoo more.
e-sarbak
09-24 04:08 AM
all of them are very well
more...
pictures blog-kiss-wedding-book-sample-
dazed378
03-28 03:23 PM
I sent the documents (tax return and W-7 together) through certified mail and as per USPS tracking, they were delivered on 28th Feb. However, IRS representative said they received my tax return documents on 14th March. I got the refund through direct deposit on 25th March.
dresses ligre tempesta di cielo.
NKR
10-13 04:18 PM
Next time I'm thinking of going Tarzan style....
They take only finger prints.. ;)
They take only finger prints.. ;)
more...
makeup more debby ryan 2010.
invincibleasian
01-31 12:28 PM
guys please quit all this begging. If yu guys need help do your research or contact an immigration attorney!
girlfriend tattoo work is insane,
DDash
09-23 04:44 PM
Hi boreal,
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
Thanks for this info. Would you mind sharing the fax number? Thanks in advance.
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
Thanks for this info. Would you mind sharing the fax number? Thanks in advance.
hairstyles debby ryan 2010. Debby Ryan
ilikekilo
03-03 09:30 AM
Hello forum gurus
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
I hear you...however the probability of success predicting the odds with USCIS are zero to none.. be +ve and move on.. Listen, iam not being philosophical here but I did move on from a so called "secure" and great company using AC21....to a smaller one....
was I concerned when I was planning to move : yes
do i loose sleep over this? no
did i file for ac 21? yes
Am I really worried : heck no
Am i ready for anything that comes my way from USCIS: heck yes and I will deal with it..easy to say..yes..but doesnt mean it will stop my life..
ps: btw Iam not single and yes I do have a family with a kid and ofcourse commitments like most poeple... so relax ..take it easy..
reg your question i am sure somone in teh forum is more knowledgeable than Iam..
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
I hear you...however the probability of success predicting the odds with USCIS are zero to none.. be +ve and move on.. Listen, iam not being philosophical here but I did move on from a so called "secure" and great company using AC21....to a smaller one....
was I concerned when I was planning to move : yes
do i loose sleep over this? no
did i file for ac 21? yes
Am I really worried : heck no
Am i ready for anything that comes my way from USCIS: heck yes and I will deal with it..easy to say..yes..but doesnt mean it will stop my life..
ps: btw Iam not single and yes I do have a family with a kid and ofcourse commitments like most poeple... so relax ..take it easy..
reg your question i am sure somone in teh forum is more knowledgeable than Iam..
prem_goel
08-05 05:15 PM
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
Agreed with above. Fill out WH-4 ESA. Google it and you'll get it. Turnaround time sometimes is around 2-3 months but you'll see definite action.
Agreed with above. Fill out WH-4 ESA. Google it and you'll get it. Turnaround time sometimes is around 2-3 months but you'll see definite action.
kris04
07-06 07:44 PM
Why would you need an EVL from your new employer or inform the USCIS of your job change, in this case? AC21 does not require you to "file AC21" (whatever that means), contrary to what has been advised in this forum many times. Please Google "Yates memo;" see, e.g., http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/ac21-51205.pdf. Here are my attorney's comments in this regard:
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
No comments:
Post a Comment