logiclife
12-20 04:54 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
wallpaper desktop wallpapers, 3D
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
uma001
10-01 10:04 AM
Although they promise a lot of things on paper, we generally skip reading the fine print. Fine print generally would include this clause (language will be a bit different)...
Same thing in company's point of view, if they invest in endless lawyer fees, filing fees, humongous paperwork and easily these days GC process take 5-35 years and during/after this time, What is the guarantee that you will still stick with the company - after all this investment of time & money? Companies need visible & predictable ROIs.
It is the age of cost cutting. If you don't like it, just quit it & start a company on your own and show them how to run it by sponsoring GCs left & right.
f your skills are in high demand, they will make you the king. If supply is high for your skills, they will go for someone cheaper..
Green card processing costs only $12000 max..Its not a big deal for such big companies.They just dont want to do the favor.
getting green card itself takes min 10 years. so you r going to stick on to this company until that time. is that not a gaurantee. working for 10 years with same company.
you know y consulting companies file green card immediately. they do that becos the employee will stay with the company for a while.American companies do not realize this.
one of my friend came back to compny as a consultant. now they are paying two times more than what they were oaying him as full time employee. is that not an expense to the company...why they r paying him that much now , instead they should have filed his green card.
Same thing in company's point of view, if they invest in endless lawyer fees, filing fees, humongous paperwork and easily these days GC process take 5-35 years and during/after this time, What is the guarantee that you will still stick with the company - after all this investment of time & money? Companies need visible & predictable ROIs.
It is the age of cost cutting. If you don't like it, just quit it & start a company on your own and show them how to run it by sponsoring GCs left & right.
f your skills are in high demand, they will make you the king. If supply is high for your skills, they will go for someone cheaper..
Green card processing costs only $12000 max..Its not a big deal for such big companies.They just dont want to do the favor.
getting green card itself takes min 10 years. so you r going to stick on to this company until that time. is that not a gaurantee. working for 10 years with same company.
you know y consulting companies file green card immediately. they do that becos the employee will stay with the company for a while.American companies do not realize this.
one of my friend came back to compny as a consultant. now they are paying two times more than what they were oaying him as full time employee. is that not an expense to the company...why they r paying him that much now , instead they should have filed his green card.
2011 desktop wallpaper 3d nature.
ramus
07-04 05:53 PM
Please send email to core members or PM them or give them a call for more info on this...
I understand you have concers about fund drive. While you get your answer can you please follow other action item and spend little time on media drive/writing your story...
Hope you do it soon..
Thanks a lot..
I see that you have changed the title to " contribute funds for continued advocacy efforts" from "contribute funds for Lawsuit"
Does that mean the fund drive was not really to fund expensive lawsuit!!
And still nobody has answered the original questions raised by other members about how IV is going to complemnt AILF in lawsuit with fund drive.
I understand you have concers about fund drive. While you get your answer can you please follow other action item and spend little time on media drive/writing your story...
Hope you do it soon..
Thanks a lot..
I see that you have changed the title to " contribute funds for continued advocacy efforts" from "contribute funds for Lawsuit"
Does that mean the fund drive was not really to fund expensive lawsuit!!
And still nobody has answered the original questions raised by other members about how IV is going to complemnt AILF in lawsuit with fund drive.
more...
godbole_sanjaya
01-16 11:52 AM
Here I go. Included myself for monthly payment.
Can you please confirm the reciept of the same?
Can you please confirm the reciept of the same?
thesparky007
02-16 07:11 PM
ohhhhhhhh my goddddddddddddd
tht is cool
man!
i want to do those stuff
i will learn
tell me a good program
tht is cool
man!
i want to do those stuff
i will learn
tell me a good program
more...
feedfront
09-14 04:03 PM
As far as I know, most likely your RFE would be related to EVL, if you didn't receive it earlier. Also, if you changed state, and working on H1 or EAD, they are sending in a standard RFE like to describe location discrepancy and letter from Employer to state that they still support your GC as per the Labor and 140 application. Hope this helps!!! Good Luck!!!
I had received an EVL last year and we responded to it immediately. Well, I'm waiting for RFE and update the forum ASAP. I think I will get RFE similar to 'abd'.
I had received an EVL last year and we responded to it immediately. Well, I'm waiting for RFE and update the forum ASAP. I think I will get RFE similar to 'abd'.
2010 From EpicWallpaper.com middot; Image
BharatPremi
03-12 02:06 PM
BharatPremi,
So you gave up H1B and moved onto EAD? Is it because the new employer is not interested in H1B transfer or some other reason?
Also, my I140 was approved in 2006 and I1485 filed in July last year (both with a large, well-known company). If I change employers now and work using EAD, are there any major issues that can arise? Like furnishing of audit reports, etc?
I tried to keep H1 but finally I had to gave it up as "For critical positions we hire EAD/GC holders- US Citizens only and thus we can not allow H1 transfer for this position".
I do not see any problem in your case based on the information what you gave here. Large companies - So must be having 3 years Audit reports - perhaps available publicly (In my case that is the case -- so virtually no risk).If you get new job offer letter with "Same job description" as one under which your gC filed - no problem - No gap in pay stubs .. Then go ahead and we will welcome you to EAD club.
So you gave up H1B and moved onto EAD? Is it because the new employer is not interested in H1B transfer or some other reason?
Also, my I140 was approved in 2006 and I1485 filed in July last year (both with a large, well-known company). If I change employers now and work using EAD, are there any major issues that can arise? Like furnishing of audit reports, etc?
I tried to keep H1 but finally I had to gave it up as "For critical positions we hire EAD/GC holders- US Citizens only and thus we can not allow H1 transfer for this position".
I do not see any problem in your case based on the information what you gave here. Large companies - So must be having 3 years Audit reports - perhaps available publicly (In my case that is the case -- so virtually no risk).If you get new job offer letter with "Same job description" as one under which your gC filed - no problem - No gap in pay stubs .. Then go ahead and we will welcome you to EAD club.
more...
ratiwari
07-24 01:14 PM
As far as I know my attorney wanted employment letter only for those whose I-140 approval did not come .With I-140 approved you don't need employment letter. I-140 deals basically with the status of employer.
hair 3D Wallpapers: Free Desktop 3D
sivakumar
02-22 12:14 PM
any comment friends ?
more...
ivuser
01-30 02:25 PM
Hi,
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
hot 3d computer wallpaper.
ashkam
07-28 08:11 AM
It's India Pale Ale, not India Pale Beer. Lord Ganesha would be shocked at your ignorance.
more...
house animated desktop wallpaper
praveen123
08-29 04:06 PM
[quote=sweet_jungle]
What's wrong in getting trained as a fresher, and what's wrong in a consulting company trying to increase there business.
How is it different from companies like TCS, Wipro, Satyam, Polaris etc that do a lot of campus recruiting, provide intensive training and place the candidates on projects and eventually coming here.
To let you know, there are more then 200K masters students coming every year to USA to pursue advanced degrees.
-the116
There is nothing wrong if you get trained as a fresher and get into consulting but i don't think its not the same way TCS, WIPRO, Satyam and Infosys etc..is doing. Those companies take you as fresher and they train u very well and you get the freedom of learning. Its like team learning.You need not to worry to say that you are a fresher. They also pay very less salary charging less billing with clients compared to the open market. But being a fresher in USA , getting trained , getting into a project , all these are individual hardwork and ofcourse more money.Once you are on client side you may not have much support as Satyam, TCS, WIPRO guys has. you can not say that u r a fresher and client expectation would be more since they pay high billing .
What's wrong in getting trained as a fresher, and what's wrong in a consulting company trying to increase there business.
How is it different from companies like TCS, Wipro, Satyam, Polaris etc that do a lot of campus recruiting, provide intensive training and place the candidates on projects and eventually coming here.
To let you know, there are more then 200K masters students coming every year to USA to pursue advanced degrees.
-the116
There is nothing wrong if you get trained as a fresher and get into consulting but i don't think its not the same way TCS, WIPRO, Satyam and Infosys etc..is doing. Those companies take you as fresher and they train u very well and you get the freedom of learning. Its like team learning.You need not to worry to say that you are a fresher. They also pay very less salary charging less billing with clients compared to the open market. But being a fresher in USA , getting trained , getting into a project , all these are individual hardwork and ofcourse more money.Once you are on client side you may not have much support as Satyam, TCS, WIPRO guys has. you can not say that u r a fresher and client expectation would be more since they pay high billing .
tattoo 3D Computer wallpapers for
fcres
07-24 05:08 PM
Good for you!
How he is going to send means waiting till RN or send without RN.
Please confirm.
I have RN, i'm a June filer
How he is going to send means waiting till RN or send without RN.
Please confirm.
I have RN, i'm a June filer
more...
pictures computer desktop wallpaper
sivakumar
02-22 11:57 AM
Hi Friends,
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
dresses 2010 755 3d computer wallpaper
msyedy
06-13 01:23 PM
Senthil1, Pineapple
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
What exactly is your point Senthil?
If by reiterating (over and over) the "evilness" of "desi" companies insofar as impacting American workers is concerned and justifying absurdly and obviously restrictionist bills on the fond hope that it would have minimal impact on the "good" American companies who hire H1s in the exception, you wish to make it clear that you are an employee of the latter set of companies, you have certainly made your point, and do not need 364 posts to hammer it it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senthil is a genuine, bona fide high skilled person working for an honest American company which has high ethical standards, and is not, repeat, NOT displacing any son of the soil American.
There - you can relax now.
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
What exactly is your point Senthil?
If by reiterating (over and over) the "evilness" of "desi" companies insofar as impacting American workers is concerned and justifying absurdly and obviously restrictionist bills on the fond hope that it would have minimal impact on the "good" American companies who hire H1s in the exception, you wish to make it clear that you are an employee of the latter set of companies, you have certainly made your point, and do not need 364 posts to hammer it it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senthil is a genuine, bona fide high skilled person working for an honest American company which has high ethical standards, and is not, repeat, NOT displacing any son of the soil American.
There - you can relax now.
more...
makeup TAG： 3D Computer Pulse REBORN
.jpg "animated desktop wallpaper")
alisa
01-27 08:16 PM
My simplistic model breaks down with this data.
With these numbers, the ROW backlog for 2002 should have cleared by now, but it hasn't. The Indian backlog should clear in a few years.
I guess, there is a reason why people don't model these things. The results are no better than pulling things outta thin air if there isn't sufficient data.......
Maybe USCIS needs computers more than we need visa numbers......
If there are any estimates on the number of applicants in the different years, we could try some math on it.....I had assumed 160K applicants for ROW in 2002, and from the numbers that andy provided, that backlog should have cleared in 2004.
Unless we are missing something really really big, things should start moving forward in a year or two. (Especially after USCIS learns about the amazing new invention called a 'computer')
As my lawyer says, in two to ten years, the PDs will be current.....
alisa
i hope that country caps are removed
i also hope it's not at your expense :-)
i don't see why people think these things are mutually exclusive
we all want the best to happen- for ourselves- and as much as we can help it
for everyone else too!!
great work on putting the data together, hopefully we can develop some concise sound bites to present to affected people and to lawmakers.
i do suggest that the final summary should show 3 examples
China EB2 and EB3
India EB2 and EB3
ROW EB3
this way everyone affected sees something about themselves
With these numbers, the ROW backlog for 2002 should have cleared by now, but it hasn't. The Indian backlog should clear in a few years.
I guess, there is a reason why people don't model these things. The results are no better than pulling things outta thin air if there isn't sufficient data.......
Maybe USCIS needs computers more than we need visa numbers......
If there are any estimates on the number of applicants in the different years, we could try some math on it.....I had assumed 160K applicants for ROW in 2002, and from the numbers that andy provided, that backlog should have cleared in 2004.
Unless we are missing something really really big, things should start moving forward in a year or two. (Especially after USCIS learns about the amazing new invention called a 'computer')
As my lawyer says, in two to ten years, the PDs will be current.....
alisa
i hope that country caps are removed
i also hope it's not at your expense :-)
i don't see why people think these things are mutually exclusive
we all want the best to happen- for ourselves- and as much as we can help it
for everyone else too!!
great work on putting the data together, hopefully we can develop some concise sound bites to present to affected people and to lawmakers.
i do suggest that the final summary should show 3 examples
China EB2 and EB3
India EB2 and EB3
ROW EB3
this way everyone affected sees something about themselves
girlfriend Free 3d Desktop Wallpaper
gimme_GC2006
04-06 11:31 PM
No no. This is very true. This happened to my friend's friend.
My friend's friend was visiting my friend and was traveling with his dog. The VO asked my friend's friend what his plan was with the dog. My friend's friend said he was just planning to stay with my friend and take the dog to walk in nearby park where he can poop in the grass and pee on a tire. The VO immediately called my friend and asked if he can take a US dog and have it poop in the park and pee on tire. My friend said yes! And the VO immediately deported my friend's friend along with dog!! :eek: My friend's friend very upset, not in shape to talk about it for 3 months.
IV should do something about this before too late! ;)
hahahah...too funny
My friend's friend was visiting my friend and was traveling with his dog. The VO asked my friend's friend what his plan was with the dog. My friend's friend said he was just planning to stay with my friend and take the dog to walk in nearby park where he can poop in the grass and pee on a tire. The VO immediately called my friend and asked if he can take a US dog and have it poop in the park and pee on tire. My friend said yes! And the VO immediately deported my friend's friend along with dog!! :eek: My friend's friend very upset, not in shape to talk about it for 3 months.
IV should do something about this before too late! ;)
hahahah...too funny
hairstyles Free 3D desktop wallpaper,
Winner
06-11 08:02 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
This underscores the urgency. Please act on the action item NOW.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
This underscores the urgency. Please act on the action item NOW.
starscream
06-12 11:34 AM
Kyl: CIR can be finished in a few days
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
please post the link to the NYTimes report and also to the report which says Cantwell amendment will be included
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
please post the link to the NYTimes report and also to the report which says Cantwell amendment will be included
mayhemt
09-10 08:06 AM
I get this question every day, what are the hopes for EB3-I, or rather are there any hopes for EB3-I? Are we fighting a lost battle?
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
6. Look for entrepreneurial options & file in EB5. You get freedom from daily-job-rat-race and visa/GC hassles.
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
6. Look for entrepreneurial options & file in EB5. You get freedom from daily-job-rat-race and visa/GC hassles.