CRAZYMONK
07-26 09:34 AM
I don't think the 2 question is valid as the GC is for future employment.
Hello,
If I read the USCIS news, then these are the questions I would ask myself and see if there is any serious legal concern...
1. Was I in non-pay status while working for VSG?
2. Is my job and location same as in my H-1B labor certification?
3. Are there any false documents submitted on my behalf to USCIS to support my visa petition?
If you answer no to all these questions, then legally you should be safe. However, as a further precaution, I would suggest to use AC-21 and move to another company. File a fresh labor (you can still claim the priority date from your old labor) and distance yourself from the fraudsters.
Hello,
If I read the USCIS news, then these are the questions I would ask myself and see if there is any serious legal concern...
1. Was I in non-pay status while working for VSG?
2. Is my job and location same as in my H-1B labor certification?
3. Are there any false documents submitted on my behalf to USCIS to support my visa petition?
If you answer no to all these questions, then legally you should be safe. However, as a further precaution, I would suggest to use AC-21 and move to another company. File a fresh labor (you can still claim the priority date from your old labor) and distance yourself from the fraudsters.
wallpaper WWE Raw 2011
nlssubbu
10-02 11:38 AM
Thanks for the response and I have recd the same kind of response from my lawyer too. What I find confusing is everyone cautions me saying "As a backup, maintain your H1." Is there a real need to maintain a backup? Meaning if I need to maintain my H1 why should I apply for EAD for myself? Or is it so that I can continue on H1 right now with my same company and If I get laid off I can use EAD to get another job (not everyone hires H1-Bs) and in later case my daughter will be covered because our AOS is pending? In that case if I leave the country I can reenter using our receipts and APs, is that right?
Your assumptions are exactly right. Do you plan to invoke AC21 in near future? I think if you switch to a company who is willing to transfer your H1B, you can transfer it as well. This is what my attorney told me some time back when I was in your stage and can still avoid using EAD.
The purpose of maintaining the backup is for safety. Even if your 485 denied, you can still have some time period left on your H1 and can look for other alternative avenues to be here legally and can restart your GC process as well. Without this H1 backup, you have a very little time to do so.
(Though I got GC now, my H1 is valid till end of 2010 :) )
Your assumptions are exactly right. Do you plan to invoke AC21 in near future? I think if you switch to a company who is willing to transfer your H1B, you can transfer it as well. This is what my attorney told me some time back when I was in your stage and can still avoid using EAD.
The purpose of maintaining the backup is for safety. Even if your 485 denied, you can still have some time period left on your H1 and can look for other alternative avenues to be here legally and can restart your GC process as well. Without this H1 backup, you have a very little time to do so.
(Though I got GC now, my H1 is valid till end of 2010 :) )
Lucky7
12-04 09:22 PM
[QUOTE=GCwaitforever]That is somewhat slavish mentality. For a different perspective ... In the words of Curt Flood, "A well-paid slave is nonetheless a slave".
I think you hit the nail on the head GC,even though i get paid very nicely i honestly feel like a slave every single day for the past 6 yrs.
The last job i had to turn down was with a fortune 100 company and would have got to work on retrofit work on the Petronas Towers,every Architects dream, but had to turn it down because i cant travel till i get my GC cleared.
As far as a lawsuit i think if DOL does not clear all cases by end of 2007 all people affected should donate $300 towards a class action lawsuit,people who can afford more should donate more obviously,and even if it does not achieve much at least it would get pulblic attention.
I think you hit the nail on the head GC,even though i get paid very nicely i honestly feel like a slave every single day for the past 6 yrs.
The last job i had to turn down was with a fortune 100 company and would have got to work on retrofit work on the Petronas Towers,every Architects dream, but had to turn it down because i cant travel till i get my GC cleared.
As far as a lawsuit i think if DOL does not clear all cases by end of 2007 all people affected should donate $300 towards a class action lawsuit,people who can afford more should donate more obviously,and even if it does not achieve much at least it would get pulblic attention.
2011 WWE SmackDown VS Raw 2011
thomachan72
06-11 06:10 PM
I strongly feel that CIR should be brought back and our amends included by our lobbying. Next time CIR is brought back, I am sure favorable amends for H1b GC applicants will be included/debated. I am only concerned about why there are no updates from the IV core group so far. Lets hope the lobbying firm that IV has hired is keeping track of the "behind the doors" discussions to make CIR more pleasing to those who voted against the closure of vote.
more...
mbartosik
05-30 01:25 PM
I don't know if you can upgrade to premium processing, and I don't know if you are allowed to pay for premium rather than employer. But in your position I would try to do I140 premium processing.
Soul
06-12 07:32 PM
lol you really want it? :P
more...
Lucky7
12-05 06:38 AM
with this type of money and job, you should have filed for EB2.. why EB3
At the time i was 2 semesters away from my Masters plus the mess my previous attorney had caused, my new attorney felt comfortable filing under EB3 because he felt i would have problems at the I-140 stage if i did not compete my Masters by that time.
In 2001 my attorney expected to have my GC by 2003 the latest and he was not counting on this mess with DBEC.
Hope all of us are through with this nightmare by end of 2007.
At the time i was 2 semesters away from my Masters plus the mess my previous attorney had caused, my new attorney felt comfortable filing under EB3 because he felt i would have problems at the I-140 stage if i did not compete my Masters by that time.
In 2001 my attorney expected to have my GC by 2003 the latest and he was not counting on this mess with DBEC.
Hope all of us are through with this nightmare by end of 2007.
2010 WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2011 Wii
lskreddy
07-14 08:38 PM
My wife and I are from Austin. I have a few friends that are in Dallas that will be more than willing to participate in any organized activity...
more...
Juan28210
11-06 11:48 AM
Thanks FinalGC!
Yes, I have that paid health benefits clause in my contract that I would use as counter-attack to my employer if they ever get back to me.
Yes, I have that paid health benefits clause in my contract that I would use as counter-attack to my employer if they ever get back to me.
hair WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2011
saravanaraj.sathya
07-31 10:08 AM
I would like to know what are the primary reasons why employers revokes approved I-140 after invoking AC21 after 180 days.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
more...
eb3_nepa
08-25 12:54 PM
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
As per my laywer, you should be able to work for an H1B and still re-enter using an AP. However for questions like these it is best to consult a GOOD attorney.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
As per my laywer, you should be able to work for an H1B and still re-enter using an AP. However for questions like these it is best to consult a GOOD attorney.
hot WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2011
buehler
07-13 03:38 PM
The software has an AI program that determines how likely you are to get a GC based on the info that you gave while registering and shows the square accordingly. So if you have
one green sqaure you will get it in 4-6 years
two green squares means 2-4 years
one red square means that your name is stuck in FBI name check and could take 6-8 years
two red squares means your deportation hearing is coming up any time now
three red squares means you are a most wanted criminal :D :D
Actually the square colors are determined by the judgment calls made fellow members. You can make this call by clicking on the weight scale image above each post. Now if only you would give me a favorable vote for explaining this in detail.:)
one green sqaure you will get it in 4-6 years
two green squares means 2-4 years
one red square means that your name is stuck in FBI name check and could take 6-8 years
two red squares means your deportation hearing is coming up any time now
three red squares means you are a most wanted criminal :D :D
Actually the square colors are determined by the judgment calls made fellow members. You can make this call by clicking on the weight scale image above each post. Now if only you would give me a favorable vote for explaining this in detail.:)
more...
house WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2011
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)
tattoo Raw 2011 leaves a lot to be
scorpion
02-26 05:30 PM
Consult your Lawyer
more...
pictures WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2011 NTSC
fromnaija
07-20 05:32 PM
Thank you!
http://www.insvisa.com/faq/department_state.htm#15
not an authoritative source but if both of you are in USA right now then you need to bring the kid now before GC approval on dependent visa
http://www.insvisa.com/faq/department_state.htm#15
not an authoritative source but if both of you are in USA right now then you need to bring the kid now before GC approval on dependent visa
dresses WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2011
pritibshah
06-24 08:35 PM
Hi,
I recently (one month back) got laid off from the company who filed for my green card. Today i got RFE on my 485 (AOS) requesting "currently dated and original letter from current employerthat specifies dates of employment, current postion, wage, and that the terms and conditions of the empployment petition continue to exist".
I am not working with the company anymore but I am on their payroll till July 21st 2009.
I am still looking for a new job so i don't have any prospective employer yet. I have to reply back before July 19th so I don't have enough time left.
My company said they can't give me employment letter now so my companies lawyer suggested that they will send reply with their own cover letter and my last two months paystubs. 3 years of tax returns.
Do you think it will work and it won't cause any problems to my petition?
What other options do I have ?
Thanks in advance!
I recently (one month back) got laid off from the company who filed for my green card. Today i got RFE on my 485 (AOS) requesting "currently dated and original letter from current employerthat specifies dates of employment, current postion, wage, and that the terms and conditions of the empployment petition continue to exist".
I am not working with the company anymore but I am on their payroll till July 21st 2009.
I am still looking for a new job so i don't have any prospective employer yet. I have to reply back before July 19th so I don't have enough time left.
My company said they can't give me employment letter now so my companies lawyer suggested that they will send reply with their own cover letter and my last two months paystubs. 3 years of tax returns.
Do you think it will work and it won't cause any problems to my petition?
What other options do I have ?
Thanks in advance!
more...
makeup wwe wii 2011. roadbloc. Dec 21, 06:08 AM. There is absolutely zero logic to
nixstor
08-14 04:25 PM
Called 6 different operators at the USCIS and got different answers (atleast they are consistently inconsistent!)
2 Said it is perfectly fine as long as the amount is correct
3 said they prefer seperate checks but if the amount is correct they will accept it
1 said they will reject the whole package.
On a lighter note i spoke to one really sweet lady when my call was escalated. All i wanted to ask was about the checks, but she (very enthusiastically) looked up my information and informed me that i was not in the system yet and actually apologised to me. Now i KNOW she looked it up coz she got my middle and company names right even without my telling her that. She even said she has received a few calls today and the guy b4 me was a lucky caller as he was in the system as of Aug 8.
Called 6 different operators today? Wow!
2 Said it is perfectly fine as long as the amount is correct
3 said they prefer seperate checks but if the amount is correct they will accept it
1 said they will reject the whole package.
On a lighter note i spoke to one really sweet lady when my call was escalated. All i wanted to ask was about the checks, but she (very enthusiastically) looked up my information and informed me that i was not in the system yet and actually apologised to me. Now i KNOW she looked it up coz she got my middle and company names right even without my telling her that. She even said she has received a few calls today and the guy b4 me was a lucky caller as he was in the system as of Aug 8.
Called 6 different operators today? Wow!
girlfriend wii 2011. wwe wii 2011.
trucks55
06-04 03:46 PM
I had recent gt my in-laws visa stamped at chennai consulate, i has send my 3 months bank statements from my online statements..
hope this help you ...
hope this help you ...
hairstyles wwe wii 2011. wii
zCool
07-16 07:21 PM
I think IV did great today. BUT
lets not act as children and pick fights with AILA. Please remember, due to their vested interest, there is NO ONE else who is more PRO-immigrant than AILA.. not even tech-employers..
So if they are saying situation might be fluid and if they are saying not to spread rumours.. then so BE it..
I hope I am wrong but seems like tiny access and frustration is causing few IV core members BIG heads ..
This is time to be calm, AND YES DISCREET!!!!
Before people start dumping on me.. please note.. we are among friends here and one of the ways to keep in check these things is to call upon friends when you feel they made a mistake.. and I FEEL IV made a mistake.. NOT in disclosing the knowledge but making an issue out of AILA warning and picking fights with them..! So lets take that out.. we know you stand by.. why keep it..?
lets not act as children and pick fights with AILA. Please remember, due to their vested interest, there is NO ONE else who is more PRO-immigrant than AILA.. not even tech-employers..
So if they are saying situation might be fluid and if they are saying not to spread rumours.. then so BE it..
I hope I am wrong but seems like tiny access and frustration is causing few IV core members BIG heads ..
This is time to be calm, AND YES DISCREET!!!!
Before people start dumping on me.. please note.. we are among friends here and one of the ways to keep in check these things is to call upon friends when you feel they made a mistake.. and I FEEL IV made a mistake.. NOT in disclosing the knowledge but making an issue out of AILA warning and picking fights with them..! So lets take that out.. we know you stand by.. why keep it..?
browncow
05-20 09:43 PM
From what I understand, if you have an H1b extended based on your Labor or I140 approval, if your I485 is denied, all applications/extensions based on your Adjustment of Status also expire.
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
ab_tak_chappan
08-13 12:51 AM
looks like vldrao got his GC and took a hike ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment