mmanurker
12-08 06:38 PM
vet04, Unfortunatly I dont have an answer to your question but if you dont mind can u pls let us know more about your current job so that I can start looking at your current job as an option for me incase if I get a green card. I am serious and not kidding. I want to know who is paying
200k salary in this job market and what is the job requirement for that.
200k salary in this job market and what is the job requirement for that.
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about the past and
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 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)
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about the past
pom
05-27 09:05 AM
The links page in Soul's site almost made me throw up, great work man :P
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about the past and
BharatPremi
03-17 10:26 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
more...
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about the past
Soul
05-28 03:19 PM
I don't usually design like this! :P
- Soul :s:
- Soul :s:
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about the past and
needhelp!
02-13 04:50 PM
Lets do it for us!
IV' ans of Southern California,
We need your help in making the Admin Fixes Campaign Successful. We are organizing a Southern California IV Meetup and Letter Signing Event this Weekend. We are targeting to get a 1000 letters signed and sent to the White House from our group. We need volunteers to print letter templates, get envelopes/stamps and most importantly bring family, friends and colleagues to this event. Please see below for details about the Venue.
Where: Woodlands Restaurant 11833 Artesia Blvd, Artesia, CA 90701
When: Sunday, Feb 17'th
Start Time: 2 PM
Please post on this thread if you can print letter templates, bring in envelopes/stamps, bring in family/friends to the venue or help out in any other way. Thanks
IV' ans of Southern California,
We need your help in making the Admin Fixes Campaign Successful. We are organizing a Southern California IV Meetup and Letter Signing Event this Weekend. We are targeting to get a 1000 letters signed and sent to the White House from our group. We need volunteers to print letter templates, get envelopes/stamps and most importantly bring family, friends and colleagues to this event. Please see below for details about the Venue.
Where: Woodlands Restaurant 11833 Artesia Blvd, Artesia, CA 90701
When: Sunday, Feb 17'th
Start Time: 2 PM
Please post on this thread if you can print letter templates, bring in envelopes/stamps, bring in family/friends to the venue or help out in any other way. Thanks
more...
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about the past
GCBy3000
11-09 02:44 PM
I moved from location A to location B within the same state with same employer. My legal consulting with company attorney is as below.
1. Yes, you can move to different location. But you have to move back to the original location once you get GC. How long you have to work at the original location is a grey area. My attorney said anywhere between 6months to one year will do.
2. If your employer is not willing to relocate you to the original location, you HAVE TO start your LC process again in the new location. Even before my labor approved from location A, I moved to location B. Since my company is good, they agreed to file 140 for location A just for me to keep the PD. Now my location B 140 is filed.
3. With the new perm process, there is no provision to state that a employee will work in multiple location. This is what I have heard from my attorney.
4. When I asked him what will happen if I dont move back to location A and continue working in location B, he said I will get into trouble when I to for interview for my citizenship. Until then, it should be fine. Only case it will be a probelm when a query is put to the employer and he does not backs you up. Of couse, no one should lie and I dont want my employer to lie for me.
Thanks folks for all the replies. I got to know finally that the employer can setup the LC to provide for any relocation. It looks like my employer usually does that so that the employees does not loose out in a relocation scenario.
Thanks for all the inputs
1. Yes, you can move to different location. But you have to move back to the original location once you get GC. How long you have to work at the original location is a grey area. My attorney said anywhere between 6months to one year will do.
2. If your employer is not willing to relocate you to the original location, you HAVE TO start your LC process again in the new location. Even before my labor approved from location A, I moved to location B. Since my company is good, they agreed to file 140 for location A just for me to keep the PD. Now my location B 140 is filed.
3. With the new perm process, there is no provision to state that a employee will work in multiple location. This is what I have heard from my attorney.
4. When I asked him what will happen if I dont move back to location A and continue working in location B, he said I will get into trouble when I to for interview for my citizenship. Until then, it should be fine. Only case it will be a probelm when a query is put to the employer and he does not backs you up. Of couse, no one should lie and I dont want my employer to lie for me.
Thanks folks for all the replies. I got to know finally that the employer can setup the LC to provide for any relocation. It looks like my employer usually does that so that the employees does not loose out in a relocation scenario.
Thanks for all the inputs
quotes about moving on from the past. moving on quotes and sayings
martinvisalaw
01-06 05:42 PM
Thanks for all the details. Greatly appreciate your advise. Looks like lot of information needs to be collected and without a research background I think its really a long shot to justify the time effort and resources.
I agree that unless the person really is outstanding, with lots of publications, conference presentations, reference letters, journal articles, etc, it is very difficult to get an EB-1 approved as an outstanding researcher or extraordinary ability. I just filed one, for example, and the package weighed almost 5 lbs, and included 54 exhibits. Yes, it was approved!
I agree that unless the person really is outstanding, with lots of publications, conference presentations, reference letters, journal articles, etc, it is very difficult to get an EB-1 approved as an outstanding researcher or extraordinary ability. I just filed one, for example, and the package weighed almost 5 lbs, and included 54 exhibits. Yes, it was approved!
more...
quotes about moving on from the past. that letting go of the past is
raj2007
02-18 10:32 PM
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything in your wife's matter. The people you are referring to as the ones whose cases got accepted are the ones with bounced checks. There is a difference between the manner in which USCIS treats cases with bounced checks and cases where checks are missing, are in an incorrect amount, there is a mismatch between words and figures in the check, check is not dated, check is not signed, etc.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about letting go of the
venky80
06-15 11:33 PM
Well they advise me to go for EB3 wouldn't EB3 have the same issue?
because my bachelors is also in mechanical engineering
because my bachelors is also in mechanical engineering
more...
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about the past and
fromnaija
07-18 06:19 PM
I have couple of questions, couldn't find answers in other threads.
1. My I485 was filed on July 6th, 2007 (PD Oct, 2005) without EAD/AP (since my lawyer was expecting a rejection). Now, he will apply for EAD/AP, and cannot do it until we get a receipt for AOS, which will probably take more than a month. Given this, I'll be applying for EAD possibly in August end. Is this a blessing in disguise, as, I'll have to pay new fees for EAD, which would mean, I won't have to renew that EAD every year?? Am I correct in this assumption?
Wrong! Yes, you will be the new fee but then you will pay the same fee each year you renew your EAD. No fee payment only applies if you file your I-485 with the new fee structure.
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
TIA.
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
1. My I485 was filed on July 6th, 2007 (PD Oct, 2005) without EAD/AP (since my lawyer was expecting a rejection). Now, he will apply for EAD/AP, and cannot do it until we get a receipt for AOS, which will probably take more than a month. Given this, I'll be applying for EAD possibly in August end. Is this a blessing in disguise, as, I'll have to pay new fees for EAD, which would mean, I won't have to renew that EAD every year?? Am I correct in this assumption?
Wrong! Yes, you will be the new fee but then you will pay the same fee each year you renew your EAD. No fee payment only applies if you file your I-485 with the new fee structure.
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
TIA.
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
quotes about moving on from the past. Quotes About Moving On
jhaalaa
11-11 10:56 AM
I agree that every single job loss matters and I support keeping jobs here where possible - unless essential.
Interestingly, jobs lost due to outsourcing are far less than other factors. Here is some interesting survey link:
Where the Jobs Went - Careers (http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Careers/Where-the-Jobs-Went-517950/?kc=CIOMINUTE11112009CIOA)
The reason I posted it here is because the anti-immigrant lobby also views immigrants as supporters of outsourcing - which is not true because we look wholistically from an economic perspective. Also we are comparatively less emotionally charged about local issues, something that we should be more involved in to ensure comfortable assimilation for natives and immigrants alike.
Interestingly, jobs lost due to outsourcing are far less than other factors. Here is some interesting survey link:
Where the Jobs Went - Careers (http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Careers/Where-the-Jobs-Went-517950/?kc=CIOMINUTE11112009CIOA)
The reason I posted it here is because the anti-immigrant lobby also views immigrants as supporters of outsourcing - which is not true because we look wholistically from an economic perspective. Also we are comparatively less emotionally charged about local issues, something that we should be more involved in to ensure comfortable assimilation for natives and immigrants alike.
more...
quotes about moving on from the past. isolation, Quotes
prince_ny2000
05-16 02:46 PM
My question to my valuable friends is that if I've filed PERM well before 365 days (i.e. the last year) but it was denied and then i refiled another PERM after the 365-day period was started, then would I still be able to renew my H1 based upon filed PERM or approved I-140 or what? :confused:
quotes about moving on from the past. past
kramac01
08-13 06:18 PM
Yes, i opened a new thread so that everybody can see that CIS does mostly work on cases according to 485 Receipt Date. Otherwise i can't justify my EAD approval. I filed 485 and AP on June 18th and got RNs 2 weeks later. But EAD was filed later on July 12th. I got the receipt number for EAD from the back of my cashed check but never got actual Receipt Notice. Today i got the email that card production has been ordered.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
How to check the LUDs in USCIS website?
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
How to check the LUDs in USCIS website?
more...
quotes about moving on from the past. Forget your past and move on
fuzzy logic
07-01 12:46 PM
I am in the same situation currently.
My company's attorneys believe that mine is not an AC21 case because I am going from Software Engineer (per PERM) to Lead Software Engineer, with substantial pay hike.
They are sending me papers for H-1B amendment and extension only (extension because my H-1B will expire soon).
Why is there a need to invoke AC21 in your case? Is there substantial change in responsibilities?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
My company's attorneys believe that mine is not an AC21 case because I am going from Software Engineer (per PERM) to Lead Software Engineer, with substantial pay hike.
They are sending me papers for H-1B amendment and extension only (extension because my H-1B will expire soon).
Why is there a need to invoke AC21 in your case? Is there substantial change in responsibilities?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
quotes about moving on from the past. Gaming has begun moving past
NKR
05-14 11:38 AM
Morning is over. We all are in mourning since the bulletin went out...
more...
quotes about moving on from the past. moving past you on the
glus
10-09 01:12 PM
Sorry to scare you in my previous reply....I did not read your question properly....
Since you are from a Non-Retrogressed Country, you may be eligible to apply for AOS. As you mentioned, you may apply I-140, I-485, I-131, and I-765 all together without any hassle. Make sure your attorney files all your applications with the right fee, since the fee structure has changed recently.
Sorry about my previous post though...
Good Luck!!
Please be careful giving such advises. The person in question was out-of-status because he never worked for company A, so it is not certain if he is in valid status at this point. I would not generalize saying he could file without any hassles. He should speak to a qualified attorney before doing that.
Since you are from a Non-Retrogressed Country, you may be eligible to apply for AOS. As you mentioned, you may apply I-140, I-485, I-131, and I-765 all together without any hassle. Make sure your attorney files all your applications with the right fee, since the fee structure has changed recently.
Sorry about my previous post though...
Good Luck!!
Please be careful giving such advises. The person in question was out-of-status because he never worked for company A, so it is not certain if he is in valid status at this point. I would not generalize saying he could file without any hassles. He should speak to a qualified attorney before doing that.
quotes about moving on from the past. Amazing Quotes On Moving On
daishwarya
07-20 03:03 PM
@Sanjay, sent you a private message. Please check.
quotes about moving on from the past. quotes about change and moving
Berkeleybee
05-17 01:08 PM
All,
As we wait for the Senate debate to move along, I know there is a great deal of restlessness and a desire to have something, anything happen. A need for reassurance that something will happen fast, or that provision X will be signed into law by ZZZ date.
I am starting this thread for such questions. Otherwise we have an ever proliferating set of threads with very specific questions like "can we have provision X become its own bill and have it signed by next Friday so I can go home and stop worrying?":)
I will move such posts in to this thread.
We will do our best to answer these questions. Hang in there, keep heart.
best,
Berkeleybee
As we wait for the Senate debate to move along, I know there is a great deal of restlessness and a desire to have something, anything happen. A need for reassurance that something will happen fast, or that provision X will be signed into law by ZZZ date.
I am starting this thread for such questions. Otherwise we have an ever proliferating set of threads with very specific questions like "can we have provision X become its own bill and have it signed by next Friday so I can go home and stop worrying?":)
I will move such posts in to this thread.
We will do our best to answer these questions. Hang in there, keep heart.
best,
Berkeleybee
oliTwist
01-10 08:46 PM
I had gone through the layoff thing during 2001-2002 time. Maybe, I might be mistaken. But I feel that time it was even worse.
go_guy123
01-07 10:32 PM
People who have been paying taxes for 6-10+ years and working in the US economy get only 50,000 Green cards a year, while 50,000 complete strangers in a foreign country get Green card in a year because they happen to be lucky and win a lottery !! :confused:
It doesnt matter who is paying taxes or not. The immigration lobby is all about vote bank
and non-skilled immigration has the upper hand over skilled ones. The senate is still under democratic party and they will roadblock any immigration bill for skilled unless there is something for the "illegals" (more likely theey will try to attach Dream act)
It doesnt matter who is paying taxes or not. The immigration lobby is all about vote bank
and non-skilled immigration has the upper hand over skilled ones. The senate is still under democratic party and they will roadblock any immigration bill for skilled unless there is something for the "illegals" (more likely theey will try to attach Dream act)
No comments:
Post a Comment