enggr
10-04 08:17 AM
They have this in Connecticut (CT) state also . In 2010 Jan I applied for my license transfer and they checked my 797, passport, employment verification letter etc and they said they need to send the verification to USCIS which will take a few hours or a day. they wanted me to come back the next day to collect the license
wallpaper she ressembles gemma ward
edaltsis
09-18 04:18 PM
If you use EAD it means you are abandoning your H1B. You have to be employed full-time (should be drawing salary on a regular basis to be in H1B/EAD status) but cant "just" work part-time.
saketkapur
03-22 12:12 PM
This is just an opinion and things can be different from case to case.......so please do not take this as legal advice.
As long as one's employment is legal and you are following all the rules regarding employment i.e. in case of an RFE you will be satisfying the rules of AC 21(same or similar job+ salary requirements:even though filing it is not mandatory and should not affect AP travel) you "should(not necessarily would)" be fine.
Do carry all your documents especially "employer verification" documents, paystubs etc to verify your legal status.
No one can predict that how a particular POE will respond so their is no silver bullet answer. All one can say is that if your employment is legal under the current immigration laws then you should be fine....
Please talk to a reputed immigration attorney to get clarifications regarding your specific case.
As long as one's employment is legal and you are following all the rules regarding employment i.e. in case of an RFE you will be satisfying the rules of AC 21(same or similar job+ salary requirements:even though filing it is not mandatory and should not affect AP travel) you "should(not necessarily would)" be fine.
Do carry all your documents especially "employer verification" documents, paystubs etc to verify your legal status.
No one can predict that how a particular POE will respond so their is no silver bullet answer. All one can say is that if your employment is legal under the current immigration laws then you should be fine....
Please talk to a reputed immigration attorney to get clarifications regarding your specific case.
2011 i think gemma ward will be~~
Macaca
12-14 07:24 PM
A USCIS rule appears in a USCIS catalog or addendum. My International Student Advisor had a catalog of rules for F1, COPT and OPT. Everytime I did something out of the norm, I made a copy of the rules. I will keep these rules till I get the green card.
I was told that there is a 60 days period during which I can switch H1B between companies. To the best of my knowledge, it does not appear in a USCIS catalog: most persons say that it is true. My lawyer told me USCIS does not a rule for the period between company switching.
I was not aware of the 60 days grace period after OPT. Please let me know if you have seen it in a USCIS catalog.
I was told that consular approval can not be denied. I was close to being denied. The person before me was denied. Once you are out of the country, anything can happen. It depends on your country, your case and the officer handling the case.
The advantage of consular approval is that you get multiple entry visa.
Once again, a USCIS rule should appear in a USCIS catalog or addendum. The catalogs and addendums should be available online. Does anyone know about it?
Some things slip by but are noticed during the GC process.
Other concerns.
1. Kaplan was issuing I-20's in my time.
2. You are in status if your application is being processed by USCIS. (haven't seen the USCIS catalog)
I was told that there is a 60 days period during which I can switch H1B between companies. To the best of my knowledge, it does not appear in a USCIS catalog: most persons say that it is true. My lawyer told me USCIS does not a rule for the period between company switching.
I was not aware of the 60 days grace period after OPT. Please let me know if you have seen it in a USCIS catalog.
I was told that consular approval can not be denied. I was close to being denied. The person before me was denied. Once you are out of the country, anything can happen. It depends on your country, your case and the officer handling the case.
The advantage of consular approval is that you get multiple entry visa.
Once again, a USCIS rule should appear in a USCIS catalog or addendum. The catalogs and addendums should be available online. Does anyone know about it?
Some things slip by but are noticed during the GC process.
Other concerns.
1. Kaplan was issuing I-20's in my time.
2. You are in status if your application is being processed by USCIS. (haven't seen the USCIS catalog)
more...
smuggymba
10-06 03:52 PM
simple1 - whenever I see ur reply, it's regarding a toll alert. Same with ronhira guy. All you 2 two do is issue toll alert whenever someone asks a question.
H1-B audits are a reality and he is asking about a visit that he got because clearly no one expects it. What's the problem? What fact gaps did ur james bond brain find?
H1-B audits are a reality and he is asking about a visit that he got because clearly no one expects it. What's the problem? What fact gaps did ur james bond brain find?
solaris27
02-24 12:04 PM
its depends ...
my CPA deducted below expenses
1) my and wife air ticket to india for visa stamping.
2) All visa fees
3) all hotel exp.
4) All attorney and USCIS fees .
but check with your CPA .
my CPA deducted below expenses
1) my and wife air ticket to india for visa stamping.
2) All visa fees
3) all hotel exp.
4) All attorney and USCIS fees .
but check with your CPA .
more...
raj2007
06-17 02:32 AM
I am planning to apply for both Canadian Permanent Residency and US green card next month. Assuming that I get my Canadian Permanent Residency and US Greencard after two years, what options do I have to maintain the permanent resident status in both countries, so that I am eligible to apply for citizenship in both countries.
Some say that showing proof of residence in both countries, commuting between the countries for work (Windsor-Canada and Detroit-US) and paying taxes in both countries would suffice.
Please guide me on this.
How can you ride on 2 horses?:)
Canada needs 3yr PR for citizenship while US needs 5. I feel it wil be issue while border crossing. US is very strict and they may take GC away.Take canadian citizenship first and then apply here. Thay way you can have both.
Some say that showing proof of residence in both countries, commuting between the countries for work (Windsor-Canada and Detroit-US) and paying taxes in both countries would suffice.
Please guide me on this.
How can you ride on 2 horses?:)
Canada needs 3yr PR for citizenship while US needs 5. I feel it wil be issue while border crossing. US is very strict and they may take GC away.Take canadian citizenship first and then apply here. Thay way you can have both.
2010 gemma ward fat pictures_10.
waitnwatch
05-30 01:36 PM
I understand if someone was stuck in BEC, we all got s****ed with that.
But why given that the H1B is only intended to be for a maximum of 6 years would anyone leave it until the last year to apply.
PERM has been around for a while now, and anyone approaching 6 years should have already filed PERM or be ready to leave after year 6.
I am not talking about applying when one reaches the 5th year. What I am saying is that a person starts applying from the first year itself (under the new merit system) but does not get a number because the quota is oversubscribed. Believe me or not this may happen to an economics or business professor with a Ph.D. from India or China. This person will have to apply every year under the proposed merit system. If this person does not get a number by the 6th year she/he has to leave. So a professor may get tenure but not an extension on H1-B because she/he did not ever get an opportunity to file a I-140.
But why given that the H1B is only intended to be for a maximum of 6 years would anyone leave it until the last year to apply.
PERM has been around for a while now, and anyone approaching 6 years should have already filed PERM or be ready to leave after year 6.
I am not talking about applying when one reaches the 5th year. What I am saying is that a person starts applying from the first year itself (under the new merit system) but does not get a number because the quota is oversubscribed. Believe me or not this may happen to an economics or business professor with a Ph.D. from India or China. This person will have to apply every year under the proposed merit system. If this person does not get a number by the 6th year she/he has to leave. So a professor may get tenure but not an extension on H1-B because she/he did not ever get an opportunity to file a I-140.
more...
gimmemygreen
01-07 12:14 AM
I recently quit Wipro in United States after servicing two weeks notice period. Wipro didn't want me to stay longer as client was not willing to pay longer than two weeks. I have not signed any service agreement with them when I came onsite on H1B. However, they insist that their deputation letter sent through email is legally binding on me even though I didn't sign a hard copy of the letter. They are asking me to pay $10,00 or serve 6 months notice period which is no longer possible as I have already joined another company. I am seeking legal help in India and planning to sue them as they have withold all my PF, Gratuity, Leave encashment and other dues, experience/relieving letter. Is it possible to sue them in United States as I currently do not stay in India? Also, can I complain to DOL, USCIS about these issues. If yes, how do I go about it?
Sue them buddy. It has potential to become a class action. Wipro is the worst employer with third class management. Managers at Wipro can't even spell Management correctly. Couple years back interviewed with and was sitting on a bridge waiting for these clowns to call in for 35 minutes. After talking to them for first 5 minutes, I hung up my cell phone and never picked their call again. Azim Premji should go back and sell his cooking oil. Managers responsible for this kind of fraud should do 20 years in federal penitentiary and then deported back in plane full of shit to their native country:D.
Sue them buddy. It has potential to become a class action. Wipro is the worst employer with third class management. Managers at Wipro can't even spell Management correctly. Couple years back interviewed with and was sitting on a bridge waiting for these clowns to call in for 35 minutes. After talking to them for first 5 minutes, I hung up my cell phone and never picked their call again. Azim Premji should go back and sell his cooking oil. Managers responsible for this kind of fraud should do 20 years in federal penitentiary and then deported back in plane full of shit to their native country:D.
hair gemma ward fat pictures_10.
gc_aspirant_prasad
12-07 08:42 PM
Most Project managers who get their GC in EB1 category are here on L1 A visa.
more...
abhijitp
01-26 09:32 PM
^^
hot gemma ward fat pictures_10.
harrydr
01-06 09:56 AM
Hey Teddy,
During you process for porting from EB3 to EB2 did you:
1. Do this within the same organization after getting your advanced degree?
2. Did you have to file for a new PERM and start from the begineeing under EB2?
3. Were you successfully able to port your PD or did you start with a new PD under EB2?
During you process for porting from EB3 to EB2 did you:
1. Do this within the same organization after getting your advanced degree?
2. Did you have to file for a new PERM and start from the begineeing under EB2?
3. Were you successfully able to port your PD or did you start with a new PD under EB2?
more...
house Gemma ward and laura margolies /gemma ward fat/
usirit
01-28 12:16 PM
We got a denial around Dec-21'07 but after appealing they change back the status to 'In Process'; and according to the timeline we should be no more than 2 weeks away from getting 'CERTIFIED'... Then I-485 and I-140...
BTW, trs80 what a nice signature....
BTW, trs80 what a nice signature....
tattoo gemma ward fat pictures_10.
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
pictures gemma ward fat pictures_10.
caforum2
09-14 06:34 AM
for folks in US, you don't need to go to Chennai, You can chose whichever consulate you want. I choose New Delhi instead of Chennai recently and got appointment in 15 days in advance. I know Oct is full in Delhi, Kolkatta, Chennai and Mumbai. I would wait till Sept 20th to see Oct dats. Usually people book appointments and change the dates only closer to interview date.
dresses actress gemma ward
ndbhatt
01-12 12:54 PM
Get a notarized copy of your passport from Indian Consulate and send it with a letter explaining legalities associated with it.
more...
makeup gemma ward fat pictures_10.
mundada
11-06 04:30 PM
I did not want to start a new thread for this. But I had earlier last month contacted many senators with the official I-485 pending inventory as proof and asking them whether it was humane, ethical and moral to ask someone wait more than 15 years for a green card! And what they are doing to remedy the situation.
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
girlfriend Gemma Ward is FAT
nrk
10-06 06:07 PM
Done
hairstyles gemma ward fat pictures.
GCard_Dream
04-27 04:12 PM
Do you have a link to the news or the bill itself? If so, would you please make that available.
walking_dude
11-25 11:52 AM
Dear Friend,
Immigration Voice (IV) [http://www.immigrationvoice.org] (http://www.immigrationvoice.org%5D), a grassroots organization working to solve the issues faced by employment-based immigrants, is planning a DC Rally during the first week of March 2009 to bring the issues faced by our community to the notice of US lawmakers.
Details of this initiative are provided here - http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22519
I request you to join IV as a member and support this initiative by indicating your interest to participate in the DC Rally and Lobby Day (visiting lawmaker offices to seek their support)
As you might know our community is facing the following situation
1) 140,000 total numbers per year worldwide vs. 1 million applicants and their families waiting in the line. Some from 2001 and may be before that ! It's common sense that it will take at least 6 years to clear just the current backlog, if there were no per country quotas.
2) Per country quotas of 7% exacerbate the situation to applicants from high-demand countries like India, China, Mexico and Phillipines. Approximately just 10,000 visa numbers are available to India where as it's estimated that at least 44% of the applicants may be from India ( based on USCIS statistics of around 44% of H1bs being granted to India every year). As spouse and children are counted, considering 4 members per family, on an average only 2500 Indian applicants get Green cards in a year. As you can see the numbers are dismal.
Meaning, if you are from India, China, Mexico or Phillipines, you may have to wait 10 to 12 years to get your Green Card or more
3) Between USCIS and DOS (Department of State that runs the Visa bulletin) a number visas get wasted every year, worsening the already BAD situation. For instance between 1994 and now 218,000 GCs were wasted by USCIS. ]If the trend continues, it may well mean 15+ years for India/China/Mexico/Phillipines
Now I know the problems ! What's the solution?
1) Increase worldwide EB GC numbers to 290,000 per year or more
2) Eliminate country quotas
3) Exempt spouses and children ( dependents) from the GC quota (this will effectively double the quota)
4) Since USCIS inefficiency cannot be fixed by us, implement a 'Rollover' of unused visas to the next year(s)
5) Recapture the unused number of 218,000 visas . This may mean you'll get GC or at least see PDs jump forward by a few years (reducing your wait time tremendously)
6) Lobby USCIS to relax USCIS strict determination of 'same and similar jobs' (defined by AC21 law) to provide job mobility and promotions.
I know the solution. But, pray, who'll bell the cat?
Fortunately for us, there is an organization that is working 100% exclusively for our cause. Immigration Voice ( http://www.immigrationvoice.org) a non-profit organization formed by EB immigrants to work for our cause. Starting with barely 200 members when it was formed in 2005, now it boasts a membership of 30,000 members and around 30 state chapters serving every US state with significant EB immigrant population.
Immigration Voice ( fondly called IV by it's members) lobbies the US Congress and USCIS to provide relief to us. They have hired a high-profile lobbying firm Patton Bloggs to do lobbying for our cause. In addition they also do grassroots lobbying at State chapter level with the local Congressmen.
What's Lobbying? Is it Legal for non-citizens ?
Lobbying or 'Advocacy' is the act of Petitoning the US Government to redress issues faced by any person living in the United States. It's a right guaranteed by US Constitution (First Amendment) to every person living in the United States, citizen or not.
Just like you can argue your own case in a court of law (if you choose to do it), you can also lobby or petition the US Government on your own. If you chose so, you can also hire a professional lobbying firm to do it for you, just like you can hire a lawyer to represent you in the court. Both are legally guaranteed rights. It's common sense that a professional does a better job - be it an experienced lawyer or a lobbying firm. Getting professional help greatly increases the chances of success.
Boy, It must be really COSTLY to hire those DC Lobbyists?
You are right. They are costly, but IV has been managing to keep the effort funded through sacrifices of it's Leadership (IV Core group), voluntary contributions from it's members, local fundraising campaigns by State chapters and selling IV-branded merchandise.
Contributions are what keep IV ticking and working for you.
I understand IV has been doing all this? Have they had any success so far? I don't want to invest in a campaign destined for failure !
IVs success record so far in the order of signifance to EB community
1) July Visa bulletin Reversal - Due to flip-flop by USCIS 350,000 applicants were denied the promised ability to file I-485 in July 2007. Chances are you might have been one of them ! We faced the grim prospect of losing thousands of dollars and countless hours of effort .
IV conducted 'Flower Campaign', i.e sending Flowers to USCIS director Emilio Ganzales to request redressal of this unfair decision (in the spirit of passive resistance movement of Mahatma Gandhi). It provided wide media coverage to the issue nationwide.
IV through it's California chapter, conducted the successful 'San Jose Rally' to highlight the isue to the Congressmen through the media. It also took an active role in petitioning San Jose Congresswoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren to help fix the issue. As it turns out Madame Lofgren, who also happens to be the Chairwoman of House sub-commitee on Immigration, was instrumental in forcing USCIS to rescind (revert) it's prior unjust decision ! An IV effort that paid rich dividends.
IV actively particpated in discussions with USCIS in deciding the modality of reversing the decision, and was the first group to announce it, even before USCIS and US Department of State !
IV Walked the Talk and helped the EB Community immensely
3) Lobbying USCIS for administrative reforms - IV participated in the FBI Namecheck backlog reduction meeting ( when it approached alarming figures with some waiting for 1-3 years), where USCIS announced increased FBI funding to expedite the checks and other process improvements to increase efficiency.
IV also successfully lobbied USCIS to increase validity of EAD/AP to 2 years from the previous validity period of 1 year. It has resulted in a saving of at least $1400 per year for every EB immigrant family that has filed I-485
IV continues to lobby USCIS to relax USCIS strict determination of 'same and similar jobs' (defined by AC21 law) to provide job mobility and promotions
All right. Is there anything I can do to help IV?
Definitely ! IV is an organization of volunteers just like you and me. There are several ways you can help IV. For starters by participating in the very important upcoming DC Rally and the Lobby Day.
Just spread the word. Forward this E-mail to all your friends waiting for GCs.
1) Join : IV forums are a good source for finding answers to Immigration related matters and exchange information. IV also conducts pro-bono (FREE) lawyer conferences for members on a regular basis.
Website link - http://www.immigrationvoice.org.
Member registration - http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/register.php
2) Contribute : As you have understood, Lobbying requires lot of funding. IV needs your support to keep the good work running.
You can contribute either one time or join as a monthly (recurring) contributor [preferred] here -
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=44
You can send ANY AMOUNT to IV as a contribution. All you need to do it create a PayPal account (if you don't have one), register a bank acount/Credit Card with PayPal (if not already done). Send money to IV using E-mail id - donations@immigrationvoice.org
3) Volunteer : If you are open to volunteering, you can join your local State Chapter of IV. State chapters conduct activities such -
a) Lawmaker meetings with Congressmen to discuss issues faced by EB immigrants
b) Fundraising at local Events
c) IV publicity through Flyers at public places & Events
d) Local media outreach to get media coverage for EB community
Benefits of joining : State Chapters provide more detailed coverage of IV updates issued from time to time than available at IV forums (restricted due to presence of anti-immigrants). They also provide updates early ( 2-3 days before stuff gets posted on IV)
How to join ? : Yahoo/Google groups for the State chapters are listed here.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52 ( Scroll to the bottom !)
Submit a request to join your State chapter with your - IV id, Full Name, E-mail, Telephone number (mandatory to filter anti-immigrants). State chapter leaders will call to verify and you are in !
You have covered it in detail. Yet, I have many unanswered questions! Whom should I contact to get more info?
Ask IV !
Call - (202) 386-6250
E-mail - info@immigrationvoice.org
Immigration Voice (IV) [http://www.immigrationvoice.org] (http://www.immigrationvoice.org%5D), a grassroots organization working to solve the issues faced by employment-based immigrants, is planning a DC Rally during the first week of March 2009 to bring the issues faced by our community to the notice of US lawmakers.
Details of this initiative are provided here - http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22519
I request you to join IV as a member and support this initiative by indicating your interest to participate in the DC Rally and Lobby Day (visiting lawmaker offices to seek their support)
As you might know our community is facing the following situation
1) 140,000 total numbers per year worldwide vs. 1 million applicants and their families waiting in the line. Some from 2001 and may be before that ! It's common sense that it will take at least 6 years to clear just the current backlog, if there were no per country quotas.
2) Per country quotas of 7% exacerbate the situation to applicants from high-demand countries like India, China, Mexico and Phillipines. Approximately just 10,000 visa numbers are available to India where as it's estimated that at least 44% of the applicants may be from India ( based on USCIS statistics of around 44% of H1bs being granted to India every year). As spouse and children are counted, considering 4 members per family, on an average only 2500 Indian applicants get Green cards in a year. As you can see the numbers are dismal.
Meaning, if you are from India, China, Mexico or Phillipines, you may have to wait 10 to 12 years to get your Green Card or more
3) Between USCIS and DOS (Department of State that runs the Visa bulletin) a number visas get wasted every year, worsening the already BAD situation. For instance between 1994 and now 218,000 GCs were wasted by USCIS. ]If the trend continues, it may well mean 15+ years for India/China/Mexico/Phillipines
Now I know the problems ! What's the solution?
1) Increase worldwide EB GC numbers to 290,000 per year or more
2) Eliminate country quotas
3) Exempt spouses and children ( dependents) from the GC quota (this will effectively double the quota)
4) Since USCIS inefficiency cannot be fixed by us, implement a 'Rollover' of unused visas to the next year(s)
5) Recapture the unused number of 218,000 visas . This may mean you'll get GC or at least see PDs jump forward by a few years (reducing your wait time tremendously)
6) Lobby USCIS to relax USCIS strict determination of 'same and similar jobs' (defined by AC21 law) to provide job mobility and promotions.
I know the solution. But, pray, who'll bell the cat?
Fortunately for us, there is an organization that is working 100% exclusively for our cause. Immigration Voice ( http://www.immigrationvoice.org) a non-profit organization formed by EB immigrants to work for our cause. Starting with barely 200 members when it was formed in 2005, now it boasts a membership of 30,000 members and around 30 state chapters serving every US state with significant EB immigrant population.
Immigration Voice ( fondly called IV by it's members) lobbies the US Congress and USCIS to provide relief to us. They have hired a high-profile lobbying firm Patton Bloggs to do lobbying for our cause. In addition they also do grassroots lobbying at State chapter level with the local Congressmen.
What's Lobbying? Is it Legal for non-citizens ?
Lobbying or 'Advocacy' is the act of Petitoning the US Government to redress issues faced by any person living in the United States. It's a right guaranteed by US Constitution (First Amendment) to every person living in the United States, citizen or not.
Just like you can argue your own case in a court of law (if you choose to do it), you can also lobby or petition the US Government on your own. If you chose so, you can also hire a professional lobbying firm to do it for you, just like you can hire a lawyer to represent you in the court. Both are legally guaranteed rights. It's common sense that a professional does a better job - be it an experienced lawyer or a lobbying firm. Getting professional help greatly increases the chances of success.
Boy, It must be really COSTLY to hire those DC Lobbyists?
You are right. They are costly, but IV has been managing to keep the effort funded through sacrifices of it's Leadership (IV Core group), voluntary contributions from it's members, local fundraising campaigns by State chapters and selling IV-branded merchandise.
Contributions are what keep IV ticking and working for you.
I understand IV has been doing all this? Have they had any success so far? I don't want to invest in a campaign destined for failure !
IVs success record so far in the order of signifance to EB community
1) July Visa bulletin Reversal - Due to flip-flop by USCIS 350,000 applicants were denied the promised ability to file I-485 in July 2007. Chances are you might have been one of them ! We faced the grim prospect of losing thousands of dollars and countless hours of effort .
IV conducted 'Flower Campaign', i.e sending Flowers to USCIS director Emilio Ganzales to request redressal of this unfair decision (in the spirit of passive resistance movement of Mahatma Gandhi). It provided wide media coverage to the issue nationwide.
IV through it's California chapter, conducted the successful 'San Jose Rally' to highlight the isue to the Congressmen through the media. It also took an active role in petitioning San Jose Congresswoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren to help fix the issue. As it turns out Madame Lofgren, who also happens to be the Chairwoman of House sub-commitee on Immigration, was instrumental in forcing USCIS to rescind (revert) it's prior unjust decision ! An IV effort that paid rich dividends.
IV actively particpated in discussions with USCIS in deciding the modality of reversing the decision, and was the first group to announce it, even before USCIS and US Department of State !
IV Walked the Talk and helped the EB Community immensely
3) Lobbying USCIS for administrative reforms - IV participated in the FBI Namecheck backlog reduction meeting ( when it approached alarming figures with some waiting for 1-3 years), where USCIS announced increased FBI funding to expedite the checks and other process improvements to increase efficiency.
IV also successfully lobbied USCIS to increase validity of EAD/AP to 2 years from the previous validity period of 1 year. It has resulted in a saving of at least $1400 per year for every EB immigrant family that has filed I-485
IV continues to lobby USCIS to relax USCIS strict determination of 'same and similar jobs' (defined by AC21 law) to provide job mobility and promotions
All right. Is there anything I can do to help IV?
Definitely ! IV is an organization of volunteers just like you and me. There are several ways you can help IV. For starters by participating in the very important upcoming DC Rally and the Lobby Day.
Just spread the word. Forward this E-mail to all your friends waiting for GCs.
1) Join : IV forums are a good source for finding answers to Immigration related matters and exchange information. IV also conducts pro-bono (FREE) lawyer conferences for members on a regular basis.
Website link - http://www.immigrationvoice.org.
Member registration - http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/register.php
2) Contribute : As you have understood, Lobbying requires lot of funding. IV needs your support to keep the good work running.
You can contribute either one time or join as a monthly (recurring) contributor [preferred] here -
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=44
You can send ANY AMOUNT to IV as a contribution. All you need to do it create a PayPal account (if you don't have one), register a bank acount/Credit Card with PayPal (if not already done). Send money to IV using E-mail id - donations@immigrationvoice.org
3) Volunteer : If you are open to volunteering, you can join your local State Chapter of IV. State chapters conduct activities such -
a) Lawmaker meetings with Congressmen to discuss issues faced by EB immigrants
b) Fundraising at local Events
c) IV publicity through Flyers at public places & Events
d) Local media outreach to get media coverage for EB community
Benefits of joining : State Chapters provide more detailed coverage of IV updates issued from time to time than available at IV forums (restricted due to presence of anti-immigrants). They also provide updates early ( 2-3 days before stuff gets posted on IV)
How to join ? : Yahoo/Google groups for the State chapters are listed here.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52 ( Scroll to the bottom !)
Submit a request to join your State chapter with your - IV id, Full Name, E-mail, Telephone number (mandatory to filter anti-immigrants). State chapter leaders will call to verify and you are in !
You have covered it in detail. Yet, I have many unanswered questions! Whom should I contact to get more info?
Ask IV !
Call - (202) 386-6250
E-mail - info@immigrationvoice.org
cooldude
07-27 10:06 PM
My lawyer filed the I-485, EAD and AP package for me and my wife. She put a G-28 notice for each application (with our and her signatures). She missed signing the AP G-28 for my wife. I asked her about this. She said it should be fine. They would not consider her notice of representation for this particular case, and would mail the AP approval directly at our home address.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
I am not sure.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
I am not sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment