b2visahelp
06-16 01:54 AM
Thank you so much for all your advice. I will let them know immediately. However, I have one more question. Is it better to apply the visa from a computer in Indonesia compare to I help them apply from my computer in the US or it really doesn't matter? I'm not sure if the embassy tracks IP address or probably has something against it. Just a thought because we're very careful not to mess it up.
wallpaper Ford Falcon Xr6 Turbo 4 Litre
srikanthmavurapu
08-16 02:35 PM
Hi Hebron,
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
brit89
07-07 02:02 PM
How many years of years of W-2 form copies do we need to attach, when we file I-485 applications?
2011 08 – Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
xgoogle
08-20 01:52 PM
Yes even our received dates are different, mine was Sep 28 and my wife's was Sep 27. Receipt #s are SRC07285**** and SRC07284**** respectively.
For me and my spouse [derivative] only the last 2 digits differ. I got approved from TSC on 8/8/8 and received the card on 8/15/8. My spouses status still says:
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On September 28, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
PD: 3/3/6
For me and my spouse [derivative] only the last 2 digits differ. I got approved from TSC on 8/8/8 and received the card on 8/15/8. My spouses status still says:
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On September 28, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
PD: 3/3/6
letstalklc
10-08 11:17 AM
Yes, there is only one queue, you go ahead and ask them for the status of your application, it's passed 15 month period.
Because of Fragomen audits the DOL audit queue is very big and after announcing dol that they will release the special audited cases to regular queue, but they did nothing as of now.
Because of Fragomen audits the DOL audit queue is very big and after announcing dol that they will release the special audited cases to regular queue, but they did nothing as of now.
more...
kaizersoze
03-21 01:48 PM
Folks,
I just put together this info and also posted on another thread. PLease, please go through this and start setting up appointment with your lawmakers.
We have already set up/met with Reichert, Murray and McDermott. Pls help in setting up appointments with the others. You may have to leave a couple of voicemails before they get back to you: refer 1st para of the letter below.(total 30 secs/per voicemail ). Remember, they are very open to listeneing to you...you are teh future vote bank :)
The congressman to whose district you do not belong will not entertain any requests. You guys have to contact your local congressmen
List of the senators and the congressmen
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...e=ctc&state=nj
To find your local representative
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
This is the letter we used. Some lawmakers contacted over the phone specifically asked to be faxed the letter and asked ho many people would visit.
Date: 01/24/2007
Dear Congressman XXXX,
I am a concerned constituent writing to you on behalf of ImmigrationVoice, a non profit organization working to get the problems of Employment based Legal Immigration to the attention of lawmakers. I would like to request for a meeting to discuss the problems that the legal high skilled immigrant community is facing.
Employment Based Legal immigration is currently facing some of the worst waiting periods in the recent past. Applicants have to wait to finish their final phase of immigration for as many as 6-7 years because of the lack of employment based green card numbers which is also called Green Card Retrogression. The reasons for these are certain bureaucratic delays, flawed practices and procedures and arcane laws which are not in tune with reality at all.
Please also note that there are more than 350,000 Labor applications pending at the Labor department to be processed. Some of them are as old as from year 2000. These applicants are waiting for certification from the US Department of Labor as high-skilled workers who are not displacing existing American workers in the market.
Subsequent to rigorous but unfruitful recruitment efforts by our employers and other processing stages by USCIS, we still have to face prolonged wait times. It is also to be noted that most of us are already working in the U.S. for the past 5-6 years and are contributing to the U.S. economy in the form of taxes etc - some of which we do not derive any benefit from. This also hurts the businesses in your constituency like my employer because they have to wait indefinitely to hire talented applicants on a permanent basis. This is a very important issue and will determine whether the United States of America remains competitive in the fields of science and technology and retains the best talent from around the world.
ImmigrationVoice is a nonprofit organization comprised of volunteers who are suffering due to these delays and wish to bring this important issue in front of their lawmakers. Hence I would request an appointment so that I can explain these problems and ask for support for some of the legislative measures that have been introduced to alleviate these problems.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(Place holder for your signature)
Your name:
Your address:
Your email:
The list of resources you need are available here: http://immigrationvoice.org/index.ph...53&Itemi d=36
We took binders of information. A quick 5 min stop at OffiecDepot will do the trick and makes a good impact on the lawmakers.
C'mon people, now is the time to make a difference. lets make this happen !!
I just put together this info and also posted on another thread. PLease, please go through this and start setting up appointment with your lawmakers.
We have already set up/met with Reichert, Murray and McDermott. Pls help in setting up appointments with the others. You may have to leave a couple of voicemails before they get back to you: refer 1st para of the letter below.(total 30 secs/per voicemail ). Remember, they are very open to listeneing to you...you are teh future vote bank :)
The congressman to whose district you do not belong will not entertain any requests. You guys have to contact your local congressmen
List of the senators and the congressmen
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...e=ctc&state=nj
To find your local representative
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
This is the letter we used. Some lawmakers contacted over the phone specifically asked to be faxed the letter and asked ho many people would visit.
Date: 01/24/2007
Dear Congressman XXXX,
I am a concerned constituent writing to you on behalf of ImmigrationVoice, a non profit organization working to get the problems of Employment based Legal Immigration to the attention of lawmakers. I would like to request for a meeting to discuss the problems that the legal high skilled immigrant community is facing.
Employment Based Legal immigration is currently facing some of the worst waiting periods in the recent past. Applicants have to wait to finish their final phase of immigration for as many as 6-7 years because of the lack of employment based green card numbers which is also called Green Card Retrogression. The reasons for these are certain bureaucratic delays, flawed practices and procedures and arcane laws which are not in tune with reality at all.
Please also note that there are more than 350,000 Labor applications pending at the Labor department to be processed. Some of them are as old as from year 2000. These applicants are waiting for certification from the US Department of Labor as high-skilled workers who are not displacing existing American workers in the market.
Subsequent to rigorous but unfruitful recruitment efforts by our employers and other processing stages by USCIS, we still have to face prolonged wait times. It is also to be noted that most of us are already working in the U.S. for the past 5-6 years and are contributing to the U.S. economy in the form of taxes etc - some of which we do not derive any benefit from. This also hurts the businesses in your constituency like my employer because they have to wait indefinitely to hire talented applicants on a permanent basis. This is a very important issue and will determine whether the United States of America remains competitive in the fields of science and technology and retains the best talent from around the world.
ImmigrationVoice is a nonprofit organization comprised of volunteers who are suffering due to these delays and wish to bring this important issue in front of their lawmakers. Hence I would request an appointment so that I can explain these problems and ask for support for some of the legislative measures that have been introduced to alleviate these problems.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(Place holder for your signature)
Your name:
Your address:
Your email:
The list of resources you need are available here: http://immigrationvoice.org/index.ph...53&Itemi d=36
We took binders of information. A quick 5 min stop at OffiecDepot will do the trick and makes a good impact on the lawmakers.
C'mon people, now is the time to make a difference. lets make this happen !!
2010 with the 300 inline 6 with
guyfromsg
07-18 08:34 PM
Hi,
I am in the same situation. I just got the tracking number from my lawyer for the fedex that he had sent on June 30 and he has sent it to Dallas . I live and work in California. I went through the Direct Filing press release and the USCIS link :
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=eb7b5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
and now I am confused as to whether my lawyer did the right thing or its ok to send the application to Dallas??
Anyone any thoughts???
Here is my opinion. I read in some posts that they will redirect the document internally to the correct processing center. The direct filing rule comes into effect on July 30th and they may be strict about filing center after that. As I said this is my opinion. Let me see if I can find the official answer in USCIS site.
I am in the same situation. I just got the tracking number from my lawyer for the fedex that he had sent on June 30 and he has sent it to Dallas . I live and work in California. I went through the Direct Filing press release and the USCIS link :
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=eb7b5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
and now I am confused as to whether my lawyer did the right thing or its ok to send the application to Dallas??
Anyone any thoughts???
Here is my opinion. I read in some posts that they will redirect the document internally to the correct processing center. The direct filing rule comes into effect on July 30th and they may be strict about filing center after that. As I said this is my opinion. Let me see if I can find the official answer in USCIS site.
more...
paskal
12-27 04:43 PM
follow up call today
details are the SAME
10pm cst
we will try to keep to the point and keep it short
please attend
details are the SAME
10pm cst
we will try to keep to the point and keep it short
please attend
hair with the 300 inline 6 with
EB3June03
06-17 10:08 AM
Thanks yganreddy for your input. It might help.
In my case, the X Ray shows nothing - so I am all clear on that.
My concern is I don't how big the thing became after the test was done (twice). Once in 1997 when I first came from India and next in 1998 (when i worked in NY Preysbeterian Hosptal and they mandatorily tested for TB via skin test). I have asked for the reports from NY hospital and am hoping that it is less than 10 mm as the civil surgeon says that if the size is bigger than 10 mm, I will have to go through the treatment for TB (even though i have no evidence of active TB). I hope he is wrong.
I had another question. Can I get the reports from India, when i got the TB test done? I might have the papers at home and will have to search for it or does USCIS not consider the papers from India? I hear a sealed envelope is what is needed from a doctor. In that case, we might be able to try to get in touch with the doctor that did the test and ask for a sealed envelope (showing him the papers he gave us when we got the test done).
In my case, the X Ray shows nothing - so I am all clear on that.
My concern is I don't how big the thing became after the test was done (twice). Once in 1997 when I first came from India and next in 1998 (when i worked in NY Preysbeterian Hosptal and they mandatorily tested for TB via skin test). I have asked for the reports from NY hospital and am hoping that it is less than 10 mm as the civil surgeon says that if the size is bigger than 10 mm, I will have to go through the treatment for TB (even though i have no evidence of active TB). I hope he is wrong.
I had another question. Can I get the reports from India, when i got the TB test done? I might have the papers at home and will have to search for it or does USCIS not consider the papers from India? I hear a sealed envelope is what is needed from a doctor. In that case, we might be able to try to get in touch with the doctor that did the test and ask for a sealed envelope (showing him the papers he gave us when we got the test done).
more...
akilaakka
07-11 02:10 PM
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
hot 3.55 rear end, 300 In-line 6.
alien2006
06-13 01:44 PM
My guess is you will be current in September 2006, may be October latest. But keep your fingers crossed. Logic does not apply too well with these things.
more...
house 3.0-liter, inline 6-cylinder
fromnaija
03-24 04:03 PM
Right off the bat I'd say you need five years of progressive experience after bachelor to qualify for EB2. Secondly, the job must require that level of qualification and experience. However, you may want to ask an immigration attorney.
Hello fellows in pain!
I have a question, I am currently stuck in EB3 retrogression with 140 approved. I am contemplating switching jobs and try out for EB2. Could anyone please share thoughts on my chances? Below are my education / experience details:
- US Bachelors in Computer Science
- More less 5-6 years of experience in my field plus a number of advanced certifications from Microsoft and Sun (I suppose these don't really matter).
- However, the above mentioned years of experience have not been all gained right after college. Last 2 years of college I was working full time in my field and going to school full time.
Any suggestions would be extremely helpful!
Cheers,
Me.
Hello fellows in pain!
I have a question, I am currently stuck in EB3 retrogression with 140 approved. I am contemplating switching jobs and try out for EB2. Could anyone please share thoughts on my chances? Below are my education / experience details:
- US Bachelors in Computer Science
- More less 5-6 years of experience in my field plus a number of advanced certifications from Microsoft and Sun (I suppose these don't really matter).
- However, the above mentioned years of experience have not been all gained right after college. Last 2 years of college I was working full time in my field and going to school full time.
Any suggestions would be extremely helpful!
Cheers,
Me.
tattoo Ford 300 inline 6 for a bucket - T-Bucket Forums - Page 2
hsingh82
06-15 11:26 PM
Indonesia
I think your best bet would be that your parents apply for visa alone. I believe this will improve their chances of getting visa and once they get the visa then your siblings can apply. Good luck!
I think your best bet would be that your parents apply for visa alone. I believe this will improve their chances of getting visa and once they get the visa then your siblings can apply. Good luck!
more...
pictures 2 Doors,3 liter inline 6
browncow
05-21 01:18 AM
H1 doesn't get invalidated on a 485 rejection, even if it was approved beyond 6 year based on the pending 485. You just may not be eligible for another extension.
well, USCIS issues EADs based on filed appeals/MTRs, so H1B is not the only solution.
well, USCIS issues EADs based on filed appeals/MTRs, so H1B is not the only solution.
dresses It#39;s 2.5L Inline 5 Turbo,
perm2gc
11-03 04:30 PM
The health benefit is actually indicated in my employment contract as part of my employment package. However, they later informed me that the health benefit is already part of my salary.
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
more...
makeup Complete with a turbo inline
morchu
05-14 12:04 PM
Not true.
Your H1B status starts from the "start date" shown in the COS/H1B approval notice. If the H1B is approved for this fiscal year, most probably it will be October 1, 2009. So till then you are in L1.
Also nothing prohibits you from re-entering on a valid L1 visa, but after re-entry you are assumed to be in L1 status. And you might end up filing COS petition one more time.
Now your question is interesting, because you are re-entering in a period of your L1 validity and I assume H1 is not valid for status till 2009 Oct.
I am not really sure about all the possible solutions in this situation. The solution I know is, enter using L1 and file another COS (not a full H1 petition, but just a COS, showing already approved H1).
Answer to OP;s questions are:
1. Yes
2. Might abandon the COS (not sure about this). But definitely your H1 is not abandoned.
3. Not automatic, another COS might be required.
Questions 4,5,6,7 are irrelavant after you file a COS on re-entry.
Since your H-1B change of status is approved, you are in H-1B Status now. In order to continue working on H-1B status after overseas trip, you must enter USA using H-1B visa stamp. This may require you to apply and get new H-1B visa stamp.
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Your H1B status starts from the "start date" shown in the COS/H1B approval notice. If the H1B is approved for this fiscal year, most probably it will be October 1, 2009. So till then you are in L1.
Also nothing prohibits you from re-entering on a valid L1 visa, but after re-entry you are assumed to be in L1 status. And you might end up filing COS petition one more time.
Now your question is interesting, because you are re-entering in a period of your L1 validity and I assume H1 is not valid for status till 2009 Oct.
I am not really sure about all the possible solutions in this situation. The solution I know is, enter using L1 and file another COS (not a full H1 petition, but just a COS, showing already approved H1).
Answer to OP;s questions are:
1. Yes
2. Might abandon the COS (not sure about this). But definitely your H1 is not abandoned.
3. Not automatic, another COS might be required.
Questions 4,5,6,7 are irrelavant after you file a COS on re-entry.
Since your H-1B change of status is approved, you are in H-1B Status now. In order to continue working on H-1B status after overseas trip, you must enter USA using H-1B visa stamp. This may require you to apply and get new H-1B visa stamp.
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
girlfriend Sdn Twin Turbo Inline-6
PHANI_TAVVALA
12-02 02:39 PM
And also, my wife is on H1B with 4 & 1/2 years remaining on hers with 1st extension. Is my converting to H4 going to help upon my h1b expiration in Sept 2009? can I convert to F-1 and possibly work on CPT if any university would allow me to do so? Thanks for your response.
hairstyles It#39;s 2.5L Inline 5 Turbo,
kaisersose
07-16 02:39 PM
You've got to hand it to these attorneys. They have a way of writing a lot without saying anything.
Sheela Murthy excels in this art. In this situation, should we still file for 485 or not? She will write a whole page on this and finally say you have to make that decision yourself.
Thank you, but I already know that one!
Sheela Murthy excels in this art. In this situation, should we still file for 485 or not? She will write a whole page on this and finally say you have to make that decision yourself.
Thank you, but I already know that one!
seahawks
07-19 08:32 PM
I work in CA, my I140 is approved from NSC.
But the lawyer sent the 485 to TSC.
I just went over the I-485 form and it clearly says to send the I-485 employment based applications to NSC
Employment-based adjustment of status.
File all employment-based adjustment of statusapplications at the following address:
USCIS Nebraska Service CenterP.O. Box 87485Lincoln, NE 68501-7485
Did my lawyer screw up?
No, there are two theories, usually if your I-140 was approved from TSC, then 485 gets filed there. Most of the 485's got to Texas these days. Now if it was send in any of them, they usually forward it to the right center.
I am from WA, mine I-140 was filed in TSC and so was my 485. They have different clauses like if you file concurrently, if your I-140 was approved and soo on.. so what is given online is not very clear. Don't worry, things will be fine. If you feel you are confused, always call USCIS and they will provide you the input.
Not an attorney, just an observation and reading. I know lot of people filed in NSC and they got forwarded by NSC to TSC!
But the lawyer sent the 485 to TSC.
I just went over the I-485 form and it clearly says to send the I-485 employment based applications to NSC
Employment-based adjustment of status.
File all employment-based adjustment of statusapplications at the following address:
USCIS Nebraska Service CenterP.O. Box 87485Lincoln, NE 68501-7485
Did my lawyer screw up?
No, there are two theories, usually if your I-140 was approved from TSC, then 485 gets filed there. Most of the 485's got to Texas these days. Now if it was send in any of them, they usually forward it to the right center.
I am from WA, mine I-140 was filed in TSC and so was my 485. They have different clauses like if you file concurrently, if your I-140 was approved and soo on.. so what is given online is not very clear. Don't worry, things will be fine. If you feel you are confused, always call USCIS and they will provide you the input.
Not an attorney, just an observation and reading. I know lot of people filed in NSC and they got forwarded by NSC to TSC!
qualified_trash
08-27 09:48 PM
IV does not represent people like you. Now get the hell out of here.
You may not agree with what everyone says on these forums. It is not your business to ask them to get out.
You may not agree with what everyone says on these forums. It is not your business to ask them to get out.
No comments:
Post a Comment