hiralal
05-09 03:34 PM
yes ..I agree with most of the above. the new admin is more protectionist .. I wonder if the analysis will show that a large number of immigrant visas were wasted !!!
in republicans you have 20% against immi but democrats maybe 80% against
hopefully BJP will come to power in India and retaliate against nuclear deal ..and then they will realise that protectionism cuts both ways !!
in republicans you have 20% against immi but democrats maybe 80% against
hopefully BJP will come to power in India and retaliate against nuclear deal ..and then they will realise that protectionism cuts both ways !!
wallpaper Home | Rebecca Contra Gallery
ArunAntonio
07-09 06:59 PM
Amit,
Can you post the template of the email you are sending to the reporters.
- AA
Can you post the template of the email you are sending to the reporters.
- AA
GC08
09-14 07:34 PM
As of September 14, 2007, USCIS has completed data entry and issued receipt notices for applications and petitions received on or before the dates indicated:
California Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-130 8/08/2007
N-400 7/26/2007
All Other Forms 9/06/2007
Nebraska Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-131 7/29/2007
I-140 7/29/2007
I-485 Employment
Based 7/29/2007
I-765 7/29/2007
N-400 7/26/2007
All Other Forms 8/05/2007
Texas Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-131 7/19/2007
I-140 8/13/2007
I-140 concurrently filed
with I-485 7/19/2007
I-485 Employment
Based 7/19/2007
I-765 7/19/2007
N-400 7/16/2007
All Other Forms 9/11/2007
Vermont Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-130 7/29/2007
N-400 7/25/2007
All Other Forms 9/4/2007
USCIS Lockbox
Form Number Date Received
I-485 Family Based 8/30/2007
TPS 8/26/2007
TEXAS center is catching up!!!!:D
If these data are true, how come a lot of July filers still have not got their receipts?
California Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-130 8/08/2007
N-400 7/26/2007
All Other Forms 9/06/2007
Nebraska Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-131 7/29/2007
I-140 7/29/2007
I-485 Employment
Based 7/29/2007
I-765 7/29/2007
N-400 7/26/2007
All Other Forms 8/05/2007
Texas Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-131 7/19/2007
I-140 8/13/2007
I-140 concurrently filed
with I-485 7/19/2007
I-485 Employment
Based 7/19/2007
I-765 7/19/2007
N-400 7/16/2007
All Other Forms 9/11/2007
Vermont Service Center
Form Number Date Received
I-130 7/29/2007
N-400 7/25/2007
All Other Forms 9/4/2007
USCIS Lockbox
Form Number Date Received
I-485 Family Based 8/30/2007
TPS 8/26/2007
TEXAS center is catching up!!!!:D
If these data are true, how come a lot of July filers still have not got their receipts?
2011 Rebecca+king+crews+ikini
desi3933
06-22 07:53 PM
Get on with sweet talks with him, do whatever he tells u to do (like sign a contract, pay ur GC cost etc). After filing u have an option to change the employer after 6 months and then no employment bond works. He will just ask for money when ur leaving him and if he doesnt give ur salary, talk to him polietly and mention the words 'Dept of Labor' in your conversation.
BTW, I got my wife salary from her employer and one of my friend was also 'bonded' ..got rid of his employer too ...using those words.
My employer is desi consultant too and is very good in such matters, quite helpful. I would recommend him to anyone. Most desi consultants are blood suckers but not all.
Good luck.
The so called Bond is actually "Employment Agreement" and it very well could be valid. Please check some cases in PA State for such Employment Cases and you may be surprised. This is not to suggest that every agreement is valid. Depends on the agreement wordings and the State Law.
Just trying to bring the other side of the coin.
These employers are doing wrong. They should help in filing I-485 for their employees. Greed has no end. Thanks God, I didn't work for such employer. I worked as hourly employee and still they paid for all GC expenses (including EAD for my spouse). My employer was non-desi and I don't know if that matters or not.
I think Negotiation is the key word here. If they know that you will leave now, they WILL try to cut a deal. All matters who is going to blink first.
Good Luck to everyone and keep your hopes high.
This is NOT a legal advice.
-------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
BTW, I got my wife salary from her employer and one of my friend was also 'bonded' ..got rid of his employer too ...using those words.
My employer is desi consultant too and is very good in such matters, quite helpful. I would recommend him to anyone. Most desi consultants are blood suckers but not all.
Good luck.
The so called Bond is actually "Employment Agreement" and it very well could be valid. Please check some cases in PA State for such Employment Cases and you may be surprised. This is not to suggest that every agreement is valid. Depends on the agreement wordings and the State Law.
Just trying to bring the other side of the coin.
These employers are doing wrong. They should help in filing I-485 for their employees. Greed has no end. Thanks God, I didn't work for such employer. I worked as hourly employee and still they paid for all GC expenses (including EAD for my spouse). My employer was non-desi and I don't know if that matters or not.
I think Negotiation is the key word here. If they know that you will leave now, they WILL try to cut a deal. All matters who is going to blink first.
Good Luck to everyone and keep your hopes high.
This is NOT a legal advice.
-------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
more...
walking_dude
10-09 10:21 AM
People are so 'adjusted' to standing in the queue, they want to make the queue permanent for themselves, as well as others. Reminds me of a story where a gentleman asked for a boon from God to turn him 'blind in one eye' so that his neighbor, who asked God that he be given twice the first one asked, will be blind in both eyes!
What does ending 'Retrogression' have to do with PDs? If retrogression ends, it means everyone will get GC in 6 months to a year. Even those with earlier PDs benefit along with newer PDs. No one's left out (except for FBI name check which doesn't honor PD now anyways!). I can't understand why people have problem with that, when they have equal chances of getting Permanent along with others.
PDs are irrelevant for EB1, EB2 ROW etc. No one cares or probably even knows their PD in those categories. PD is comparable to Jail system to keep people locked up ( 'your time to get out has not come yet'). Making dates current is freeing everyone from this Jail together. But some people don't want it to happen. Arguments such as 'I spent 6-7 years waiting, others should also wait' is immature and childish. I can understand 5 year tots making such kiddish demands. It's sad to see mature grownups acting such childish manner. Some people have become adjusted so much to 'Retrogression System Jail' they never want it to end , like the way Mr. Red ( Morgan Freeman) is scared of leaving the jail in the 'Shawshank Redemption', as life without the jail (Retrogression) scares them!
There is a medical term to describe this mental condition 'Crab Mentality', which is often used to describe Alcoholics and Drug Addicts. Try to lift one single crab from a vessel full of crabs, other crabs will try their best to pull that one back. Same mentality is at play here - if I don't get it nobody else should get it. Don't you guys feel shamed to act so self-centered and selfish like crabs?
This is my last post on the subject. I've better things to do ( my chapter meeting, IV action items etc.) than waste time arguing with arm-chair pundits.
You must be one of those who is retrogressed and is hoping that somehow the Government will remove retrogression and you will be one of the lucky few who will magically slime through while there are others who were way ahead of you in the queue still waiting. Therefore I understand your anger whenever someone talks about honouring queues. It is human psychology. When we are at the beginning of a queue, we prefer that queues are honored and we are at the end of the queue, we wish we could somehow get to the beginning. There is no rocket science involved here. You are human too.
What does ending 'Retrogression' have to do with PDs? If retrogression ends, it means everyone will get GC in 6 months to a year. Even those with earlier PDs benefit along with newer PDs. No one's left out (except for FBI name check which doesn't honor PD now anyways!). I can't understand why people have problem with that, when they have equal chances of getting Permanent along with others.
PDs are irrelevant for EB1, EB2 ROW etc. No one cares or probably even knows their PD in those categories. PD is comparable to Jail system to keep people locked up ( 'your time to get out has not come yet'). Making dates current is freeing everyone from this Jail together. But some people don't want it to happen. Arguments such as 'I spent 6-7 years waiting, others should also wait' is immature and childish. I can understand 5 year tots making such kiddish demands. It's sad to see mature grownups acting such childish manner. Some people have become adjusted so much to 'Retrogression System Jail' they never want it to end , like the way Mr. Red ( Morgan Freeman) is scared of leaving the jail in the 'Shawshank Redemption', as life without the jail (Retrogression) scares them!
There is a medical term to describe this mental condition 'Crab Mentality', which is often used to describe Alcoholics and Drug Addicts. Try to lift one single crab from a vessel full of crabs, other crabs will try their best to pull that one back. Same mentality is at play here - if I don't get it nobody else should get it. Don't you guys feel shamed to act so self-centered and selfish like crabs?
This is my last post on the subject. I've better things to do ( my chapter meeting, IV action items etc.) than waste time arguing with arm-chair pundits.
You must be one of those who is retrogressed and is hoping that somehow the Government will remove retrogression and you will be one of the lucky few who will magically slime through while there are others who were way ahead of you in the queue still waiting. Therefore I understand your anger whenever someone talks about honouring queues. It is human psychology. When we are at the beginning of a queue, we prefer that queues are honored and we are at the end of the queue, we wish we could somehow get to the beginning. There is no rocket science involved here. You are human too.
gcpool
10-03 06:01 AM
My status on CRIS has changed. No emails. Its says my approval has been sent. But nothing about the card. I spoke to the CS and they said my biometrics have to be uploaded. In the mean time can I get my passport stamped?
more...
sankap
07-09 10:20 PM
In that case, I *guess* you can show yourself as "permanently self-employed" for your own company--should be easy if you have an LLC that does business in "same or similar" occupation (e.g., consulting/PM). Should also be easy to state the *projected" yearly income on EVL.
First read this post.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/473142-post12.html
This should clear your doubt. You can read RFE issued by USCIS on other forum as well. The word "permanent" is right there.
.
First read this post.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/473142-post12.html
This should clear your doubt. You can read RFE issued by USCIS on other forum as well. The word "permanent" is right there.
.
2010 Rebecca Crews and Terry Crews
desi3933
07-09 12:06 PM
Condi and USCIS are saying the above.
Now lets see how the above LAW was followed in the following cases (which may not be a complete list).
Oct 1 2005 & Oct 1 2006 when 140K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
May 14 (??) when 60K GCs were available but many more AOSs were acceptable and were accepted from June 1-30.
June 12 when < 40K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were acceptable.
July 2 when 0 GCs were available and ANY AOS was not acceptable.
Months in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
Months in 2005 and 2006 when ANY AOS was not acceptable.
You are missing a point here.
The term "immediately available" is determined by the PD in the visa bulletin. (If someone needs a law reference, let me know).
DoS determines PD in the visa bulletin depending on various factors (such as number of GC Numbers used so far, number of pending I-485 applications etc.) and they can revise visa bulletin anytime.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
Now lets see how the above LAW was followed in the following cases (which may not be a complete list).
Oct 1 2005 & Oct 1 2006 when 140K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
May 14 (??) when 60K GCs were available but many more AOSs were acceptable and were accepted from June 1-30.
June 12 when < 40K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were acceptable.
July 2 when 0 GCs were available and ANY AOS was not acceptable.
Months in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
Months in 2005 and 2006 when ANY AOS was not acceptable.
You are missing a point here.
The term "immediately available" is determined by the PD in the visa bulletin. (If someone needs a law reference, let me know).
DoS determines PD in the visa bulletin depending on various factors (such as number of GC Numbers used so far, number of pending I-485 applications etc.) and they can revise visa bulletin anytime.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
sss9i
11-21 07:18 PM
Please think workable plan
hair Sexy Bikini Bod in Miami
GCSeekerCT
05-11 07:35 PM
Vivek Ahuja, you and afew others are able to see the light of the day, and not have been blinded by false facade of the Obama administration. THis is a far far left amdnistration, which will never do anything to incourage Skilled immigrant population, because they need dumb masses to follow them like a herd of cattle...
While I agree with your statement, isn't that the goal/view of probably most ruling parties ?
they either will think we are too dumb to understand, or they actually way too smart in manipulating/tweaking/influencing the masses.
While I agree with your statement, isn't that the goal/view of probably most ruling parties ?
they either will think we are too dumb to understand, or they actually way too smart in manipulating/tweaking/influencing the masses.
more...
unitednations
03-07 01:17 PM
This is exactly what I was saying. People are getting overzealous and are losing their balance. By attracting too much attention when everyone in power is being anti-immigrant you people will hurt everyone. They will impose some more restrictions on us.
We need to lay low for a while until economy improves and focus on keeping our jobs. That is the need of the hour rather than becoming a hero and trying to go against the wave.
One thing that everyne needs to understand is that before the lawmakers, etc., take a stand they study the issue.
Part of the study would be: Why is there so many Indians in the que?
What type of companies are sponsoring most greencards?
Rate of H-1b denials?
Rate of consulate denials?
How are people getting here?
What is the average wage of people being sponsored here?
if people are so skilled then why don't they go into extraordinary ability?
DOL investigations?
The list goes on and on of what the counter attacks are...
People can send out press releases, contact the senators, etc., but it is one way communication. Then other side waits and releases their information. Right now; other side is winning by large margin.
What is going on now with H-1b is direct result of quota completing so fast and it being studied with filed visits, audits. Conclusion was high rate of fraud; let's crack down.
Is everybody ready for this type of scrutiny? You may think you have done everything right but all it takes is for one case from your company sponsoring you or a company which you had h-1b in the past to get investigated and you take the fall along with many others.
We need to lay low for a while until economy improves and focus on keeping our jobs. That is the need of the hour rather than becoming a hero and trying to go against the wave.
One thing that everyne needs to understand is that before the lawmakers, etc., take a stand they study the issue.
Part of the study would be: Why is there so many Indians in the que?
What type of companies are sponsoring most greencards?
Rate of H-1b denials?
Rate of consulate denials?
How are people getting here?
What is the average wage of people being sponsored here?
if people are so skilled then why don't they go into extraordinary ability?
DOL investigations?
The list goes on and on of what the counter attacks are...
People can send out press releases, contact the senators, etc., but it is one way communication. Then other side waits and releases their information. Right now; other side is winning by large margin.
What is going on now with H-1b is direct result of quota completing so fast and it being studied with filed visits, audits. Conclusion was high rate of fraud; let's crack down.
Is everybody ready for this type of scrutiny? You may think you have done everything right but all it takes is for one case from your company sponsoring you or a company which you had h-1b in the past to get investigated and you take the fall along with many others.
hot rebecca black blog: Action
nandakumar
09-17 03:22 PM
Something needs to be done to make USCIS accountable for its actions.
I welcome this initiative by joining today and pledging to contribute if at least 1000 others come together to push forward this effort.
I have sent my details to man-woman-and-gc.
I welcome this initiative by joining today and pledging to contribute if at least 1000 others come together to push forward this effort.
I have sent my details to man-woman-and-gc.
more...
house Hollywood
snathan
05-01 12:38 PM
gc_on_demand,
Please dont mix priority date with quota.
spouse's priority date will be the same as primary priority date.
We are discussing about quota here.
When you have the PD for primary as 2009 in EB2. He might be getting the GC in 3-4 years. But if you count the spouse in FB it will be another five years. Specially when you count the Spouse agaist the FB it will increase the back log.
So one of the IV agenda is remove counting the spouse/children against the quota. So we dont need to have all this mess.
Please dont mix priority date with quota.
spouse's priority date will be the same as primary priority date.
We are discussing about quota here.
When you have the PD for primary as 2009 in EB2. He might be getting the GC in 3-4 years. But if you count the spouse in FB it will be another five years. Specially when you count the Spouse agaist the FB it will increase the back log.
So one of the IV agenda is remove counting the spouse/children against the quota. So we dont need to have all this mess.
tattoo Wearing a black ikini and
bhobama
05-10 09:08 PM
Quota based on race argument is fallacious. For example, Bangladesh and Pakistan are not limited by the quota. However, they are the of the same ethnic/racial background as people from India.
The concept of "diversity" by country is a racially motivated law. It does not promote diversity. In fact it limits diversity.
The concept of "diversity" by country is a racially motivated law. It does not promote diversity. In fact it limits diversity.
more...
pictures Terry and Rebecca Crews
gc28262
07-19 07:56 PM
My thoughts:
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
dresses Results » rebecca crews
vinabath
04-23 09:32 AM
I am not hitting on employers revenues, infact employer made money since two yrs because of me. The reason is, employer never got this project for me. It never had any business either with PF or with the client earlier. It was only because of my contact with the PF i got the project. i introduced the PF to my employer, have them sign a contract and since these two yrs my employer was able to place 4-5 consultants through the PF i introduced to them. Now tell me, how much my employer would have made because of me or other consultants??? Even after all this, he is being mean to me. these desi companies thirst for money is never ending. whereas consulatnts can never look up for a better life!!!!!!
You have a case buddy. Since you got the project on your own and you needed an H-1b vehicle. you have a great argument if your employer goes to the court.
You have a case buddy. Since you got the project on your own and you needed an H-1b vehicle. you have a great argument if your employer goes to the court.
more...
makeup Family Crews | Shows | BET
sammyb
11-21 10:58 AM
Can IV as a group arrange some legal consultation for Mehul and his family ... guess we can have a fund drive and raise some money to cover the legal fees ... I am for it... let me know what other thinks ...
girlfriend demi lovato 2011 photoshoot.
manchala
02-16 06:26 PM
Bank of America Bill Pay confirmation number C2WZ7-X3TSQ
Will be calling my friends and asking them to make some contributions
Asked few DC friends to definitely make it to the Event.
Will be calling my friends and asking them to make some contributions
Asked few DC friends to definitely make it to the Event.
hairstyles Gallery | rebecca gomez
Sachin_Stock
09-24 01:42 PM
Equating labor substitution with porting is real silly. Labor substitution was clamped down, because of abuse, however it didn't mean that it was wrong by its very virtue. However the abuse lead to its closure.
As for porting, I don't see any scope for abuse. Cuz the process is in such a way, that one has to refile labor, 140, and all the exact procedures similar any freshly new EB-2 candidate would. The only difference is that at the end, one has option to request his/her earlier date.
And rightly so, because there's a difference between two Eb-2 filers. One who has not filed anything before, and one has filed "SOMETHING" before. That "something" holds the merit.
As for porting, I don't see any scope for abuse. Cuz the process is in such a way, that one has to refile labor, 140, and all the exact procedures similar any freshly new EB-2 candidate would. The only difference is that at the end, one has option to request his/her earlier date.
And rightly so, because there's a difference between two Eb-2 filers. One who has not filed anything before, and one has filed "SOMETHING" before. That "something" holds the merit.
Jimi_Hendrix
10-27 11:10 AM
I do not think IV is standing alone on this issue. I think that IV is making alliances based on our membership size, funding and reach capabilities. Many times when such alliances may be formed, the other side may not want to be identified in the media. This is particularly true in the current political climate where each side is out to villify the other. I believe that as individuals we should keep creating more awareness among fellow retrogression sufferers and GC applicants alike. I find it amazing that there are so many applicants out there who have not heard about IV. I keep meeting people who suffer from so many retrogression issues and then again they are doing nothing to fight it.
kumar1
06-26 12:14 PM
You stole words from my mouth. Do not tell them that you have EAD.
The trick is to say that you have unrestricted work authorization, i.e., can work for any employer without needing additional sponsorship. Stating that you have an EAD may be confusing to some and they may just take the easy way out by not pursuing further, or, wilfully rejecting to avoid any kind of complications later on that could jeopardize the specific project by suddennly being unable to work.
The trick is to say that you have unrestricted work authorization, i.e., can work for any employer without needing additional sponsorship. Stating that you have an EAD may be confusing to some and they may just take the easy way out by not pursuing further, or, wilfully rejecting to avoid any kind of complications later on that could jeopardize the specific project by suddennly being unable to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment