asanghi
02-26 02:48 PM
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
Please recheck your info before dispensing advice. Adjustment of Status application is based on premise that you are already present in USA. At the time approval, you should be present in USA. Thus the need for AP. If your Green card AOS application has been approved while you are out of country. You NEED AP to enter.
Please recheck your info before dispensing advice. Adjustment of Status application is based on premise that you are already present in USA. At the time approval, you should be present in USA. Thus the need for AP. If your Green card AOS application has been approved while you are out of country. You NEED AP to enter.
wallpaper 2001 Ford F150 4X4 XLT
Lucky7
12-04 08:24 AM
I am a Commercial/Industrial Architect and have allready had to turn down 2 jobs this year making double what i make here in hicksville Fresno CA due to the fact that i do not have a green card.
As far as the investor visa,i have looked into this too with my attorney and i am not elligible,even though i have the funds,due to the fact that my previous attorney did not file my papers on time in 2000 and therfore had to refile under 245i in 2001 and i am paying the price along with 30 other clients of the crooked attorney who ran away to another state.
My earnings this yr were above your guys fugures but Uncle Sam takes a very large chunk due to being single,no real estate in my name and no tax write offs.
As far as the investor visa,i have looked into this too with my attorney and i am not elligible,even though i have the funds,due to the fact that my previous attorney did not file my papers on time in 2000 and therfore had to refile under 245i in 2001 and i am paying the price along with 30 other clients of the crooked attorney who ran away to another state.
My earnings this yr were above your guys fugures but Uncle Sam takes a very large chunk due to being single,no real estate in my name and no tax write offs.
ujjvalkoul
03-06 01:14 PM
do they normally send a receipt notice for the new 765 application that you file to correct EAD error...?
i.e. if we do not receive a RECEIPT NOTICE in like 2 -3 months- should we follow up by Infopass or Calling 1800 number? OR just wait!!! for 4 months to end and then call and infopass
i.e. if we do not receive a RECEIPT NOTICE in like 2 -3 months- should we follow up by Infopass or Calling 1800 number? OR just wait!!! for 4 months to end and then call and infopass
2011 Seat Covers F150 Truck
Kitiara
05-27 10:25 AM
Consider it a back handed compliment. :)
more...
meridiani.planum
02-01 05:23 AM
thanks for the reply..this means having a dependent visa is the key at the time of approval..
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
yes. if your wife was on H4, as soon as your 485 is approved, her H4 ends. However since your 485 is getting approved, your PD is presumably current meaning she is eligible to immediately file 485, and get to that as a legal status. If she has a dependent visa approved, and has travelled here thats nice, otherwise she has to file a 485 from your home country as a follow-to-join and htat can take some time for her to travel here.
There is no 6 month grace period as such. Its just that upto 6 months of out-of-status is forgiven at 485 approval, and since on your 485 approval your H1 ends and so does her h4, it makes her status-less here. Being in that state upto 6 months is forgiven for 485.
Its most important that you get married before the approval of your 485. Do court-marriage if your PD is current, to be on the safe side, even if the actual ceremony is still a month or two away. When to honeymoon is upto you. Cant let USCIS decide EVERYTHING, can we...
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
yes. if your wife was on H4, as soon as your 485 is approved, her H4 ends. However since your 485 is getting approved, your PD is presumably current meaning she is eligible to immediately file 485, and get to that as a legal status. If she has a dependent visa approved, and has travelled here thats nice, otherwise she has to file a 485 from your home country as a follow-to-join and htat can take some time for her to travel here.
There is no 6 month grace period as such. Its just that upto 6 months of out-of-status is forgiven at 485 approval, and since on your 485 approval your H1 ends and so does her h4, it makes her status-less here. Being in that state upto 6 months is forgiven for 485.
Its most important that you get married before the approval of your 485. Do court-marriage if your PD is current, to be on the safe side, even if the actual ceremony is still a month or two away. When to honeymoon is upto you. Cant let USCIS decide EVERYTHING, can we...
andy garcia
10-05 10:37 AM
The best way to first start the changes to happen is to file a law suit against USCIS. If we can find a bunch of people would have the same kind of application credentials and different PD were the later PD application was approved we can sue USCIS for losses in personal life and career due to their ineffeciency.
How many of you would be intersted in a law suit like this. If we have even a hunder people to file a law suit we will get more media publicity and our problem will get more recogniction than rallies and lobbying.
This is what the law says:
INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed.
What is your argument to sue?
How many of you would be intersted in a law suit like this. If we have even a hunder people to file a law suit we will get more media publicity and our problem will get more recogniction than rallies and lobbying.
This is what the law says:
INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed.
What is your argument to sue?
more...
chanduv23
12-15 11:40 AM
My company is surplussing me among other employees to be laid off around Apr 2009.
My case is as follows:
Case EB3 India
PD Mar 2004
Labor and I-140 approved
I-485 filed during Jun-Jul 2007 rush, FP done, waiting for PD to become current
Right now I am working on H1-B extension, and to make things complicated, I got married in Jul 2008 and brought spouse on H4.
I am not sure which avenue is the best for me, I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
As you did not apply for 485 for your wife, she has to be on h4. You have enough time to get a job and file for h1b transfer and use ac21. Start looking for jobs and make your move once you get the job.
My case is as follows:
Case EB3 India
PD Mar 2004
Labor and I-140 approved
I-485 filed during Jun-Jul 2007 rush, FP done, waiting for PD to become current
Right now I am working on H1-B extension, and to make things complicated, I got married in Jul 2008 and brought spouse on H4.
I am not sure which avenue is the best for me, I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
As you did not apply for 485 for your wife, she has to be on h4. You have enough time to get a job and file for h1b transfer and use ac21. Start looking for jobs and make your move once you get the job.
2010 2007 Ford F150 Cover Truck
morchu
04-21 01:40 PM
Wrong.
H1B has nothing to do with an AOS. AOS has its own requirements, and having an H1B or even being "employed" at the time, is not a requirement for AOS.
So "brick2006", theoreticaly can file for AOS, even when he is in H4.
-Morchu
....To file AOS once PD is current, it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
H1B has nothing to do with an AOS. AOS has its own requirements, and having an H1B or even being "employed" at the time, is not a requirement for AOS.
So "brick2006", theoreticaly can file for AOS, even when he is in H4.
-Morchu
....To file AOS once PD is current, it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
more...
shana04
07-21 09:05 AM
Friends / Gurus,
Please advice or suggest.
Here is my situation, filed I 485 in July 2007 and No FP done.
Called USCIS in Mar 2008 and opened a SR and got SR for my self in hard copy and an email for my wife that some one contacted about your case for FP and a notice will be mailed to with specific time and date.
And I waited this long and no notice has arrived for me and dates are current in Aug 2008.
Today (July 21 2008) I called USCIS and used the following menus.
2-6-1-(Enter Receipt Number)-1-1-3-1
And a representative has greeted very well and asked bunch of questions and asked to answer yes or no (no details just yes or no)
Then she said as the Background Clearance has not been done for my case, they would not send the FP. And to open a SR I have to wait at least 441 days from Receipt date of I485 to open SR.
When I asked about my wife's case, she replied the same in no FP has done then probably she has not got her background clearance yet. so need to wait for 441 days for her case too.
Then I said my dates are current and if no FP done then I would loose my chance and she replied that until background clearance is done no FP will be sent and they would not touch the case until then.
Friends / Gurus, any advice or please let me know how to follow up on this. I do not want to loose this opportunity.
Thanks in advance.
Shana
Please advice or suggest.
Here is my situation, filed I 485 in July 2007 and No FP done.
Called USCIS in Mar 2008 and opened a SR and got SR for my self in hard copy and an email for my wife that some one contacted about your case for FP and a notice will be mailed to with specific time and date.
And I waited this long and no notice has arrived for me and dates are current in Aug 2008.
Today (July 21 2008) I called USCIS and used the following menus.
2-6-1-(Enter Receipt Number)-1-1-3-1
And a representative has greeted very well and asked bunch of questions and asked to answer yes or no (no details just yes or no)
Then she said as the Background Clearance has not been done for my case, they would not send the FP. And to open a SR I have to wait at least 441 days from Receipt date of I485 to open SR.
When I asked about my wife's case, she replied the same in no FP has done then probably she has not got her background clearance yet. so need to wait for 441 days for her case too.
Then I said my dates are current and if no FP done then I would loose my chance and she replied that until background clearance is done no FP will be sent and they would not touch the case until then.
Friends / Gurus, any advice or please let me know how to follow up on this. I do not want to loose this opportunity.
Thanks in advance.
Shana
hair ONE SET OF 4 CHROME DOOR HANDLE COVERS - FORD F150 2004-09 (4 DOOR,
anilsal
10-27 10:09 AM
as the chapter leaders can appraise you of what is possible, what is the view of leaders towards skilled immigration etc.
Rather than vent your frustration on the forums, direct them constructively to some IV activity.
Rather than vent your frustration on the forums, direct them constructively to some IV activity.
more...
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)
hot under a truck cover.
purgan
04-13 10:13 AM
USINPAC, for instance, promotes its role in the India-US nuclear deal.
It has also listed immigration as one of its issues, but all it cares about there is family immigration, so all those citizens can sponsor their own relatives. A bunch of A$^#^
himu73, why don't you try to contact these two oganizations + USINPAC to see what kind of traction you can get? The core is busy and needs all the help it can get. Are you upto it?
It has also listed immigration as one of its issues, but all it cares about there is family immigration, so all those citizens can sponsor their own relatives. A bunch of A$^#^
himu73, why don't you try to contact these two oganizations + USINPAC to see what kind of traction you can get? The core is busy and needs all the help it can get. Are you upto it?
more...
house Bed Cover — 1973-1996 Ford
naushit
02-12 03:22 PM
Chris,
This is what I did, I just called and told them I need to do FP, can you please schedule it for me?, and surprisingly without any resistance they just scheduled my finger prints for First week of March! (yesterday I received FP notice,scheduled for fist week of March 2009).
I do not think without valid FP your case will pass their , "ready to approve" filter criteria.
so get your FP done.
Good luck,
Regards,
-N
You are right. My finger prints are expired and called several times and took info pass.
Same answer, " if IO thinks need FP, they will send. Wait for their decission". :mad:
This is what I did, I just called and told them I need to do FP, can you please schedule it for me?, and surprisingly without any resistance they just scheduled my finger prints for First week of March! (yesterday I received FP notice,scheduled for fist week of March 2009).
I do not think without valid FP your case will pass their , "ready to approve" filter criteria.
so get your FP done.
Good luck,
Regards,
-N
You are right. My finger prints are expired and called several times and took info pass.
Same answer, " if IO thinks need FP, they will send. Wait for their decission". :mad:
tattoo Lariat Truck - Dream Wagon
maverick_joe
05-05 10:07 AM
I totally agree, but as if there isnt a backlog at I-140 right now!! its been more than an year since I filed my I-140 ..I see a couple of LUDs but no approval in sight!
Does anyone else have the same story? I-140 pending for 12+ months now(transfered from NSC to TSC last month).
Years before, the back log was at Labor Stage, then when PERM Labor came into existance, the back log was at 485 stage, now with non-concurrent filing I think the I 140 will get backlogged.
Does anyone else have the same story? I-140 pending for 12+ months now(transfered from NSC to TSC last month).
Years before, the back log was at Labor Stage, then when PERM Labor came into existance, the back log was at 485 stage, now with non-concurrent filing I think the I 140 will get backlogged.
more...
pictures F100/F150 pickup truck
Daisy
10-26 10:31 AM
I have a question: How many months in advance should you apply for H1 extension? Do you get extension from the date you applied or from date when your H1 expires?
dresses Custom 4x4 Truck Pictures
tabletpc
09-27 09:27 AM
yesterday in Lou Dobbs i heard that an illigal immigrant who was arrested at the border of mexico stole the border patrol vehicle and drove back to mexico in that vehicle. Later helicofters were sued to recover the vehicle. LOL...!!!!
I watch his program every day as i reach home at the start of this program. I watch anxiously hoping they might mention somewhere for atleast for 10 sec about legal immigrant...but they never...!!!Jsu tjsut keep mentioning about illigal immigrants whole hour of the show.
Sometimes i feel its high time to reconisder the US dream...!!!!
I watch his program every day as i reach home at the start of this program. I watch anxiously hoping they might mention somewhere for atleast for 10 sec about legal immigrant...but they never...!!!Jsu tjsut keep mentioning about illigal immigrants whole hour of the show.
Sometimes i feel its high time to reconisder the US dream...!!!!
more...
makeup 2007 Ford F150 Cover Truck
chicagobuddy
05-25 01:47 AM
hello krish,
I too have an appointment at matamoros on June 3th 2010. Please share your experiences
after your interview
I too have an appointment at matamoros on June 3th 2010. Please share your experiences
after your interview
girlfriend Truck Chrome Mirror Cover
gcnirvana
04-27 08:25 PM
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
This one is from Mathew Oh:
04/27/2007: Disappointing News of Sponsor's No Immediate Push for Hagel High-Tech Temporary Relief Bill
The Senator from Nebraska introduced earlier High-Tech Worker Relief bill. The employment-based immigrant community and the businesses and academic institutions had some level of hope and expectation that this bill might be acted upon as separate from the CIR. However, there is a report that Senator Hagel stated that the Senator introduced the bill intended to be handled as part of the CIR legislation process. It thus appears that all the bills which have been introduced recently were also intended by the bill sponsors to be debated and reflected in the CIR legislation process in May in the form of amendments. There we go. The Senator yesterday introduced S.1225 for the illegal immigration reform part of his own comprehensive immigration reform scheme under the name of Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007. Probably more immigration reforms bills may be introduced by other legislators before and during the Comprehensive Immigration Reform debate in the Senate next month. As we summarized on 04/22/2007, there have been developing compromises along the lines of key issues which we highlighted in the posting and media start predicting that because of these compromises, the CIR may have a better chance to pass this year than last year.
Well, we are only inches away from the door steps of May 2007. After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
This one is from Mathew Oh:
04/27/2007: Disappointing News of Sponsor's No Immediate Push for Hagel High-Tech Temporary Relief Bill
The Senator from Nebraska introduced earlier High-Tech Worker Relief bill. The employment-based immigrant community and the businesses and academic institutions had some level of hope and expectation that this bill might be acted upon as separate from the CIR. However, there is a report that Senator Hagel stated that the Senator introduced the bill intended to be handled as part of the CIR legislation process. It thus appears that all the bills which have been introduced recently were also intended by the bill sponsors to be debated and reflected in the CIR legislation process in May in the form of amendments. There we go. The Senator yesterday introduced S.1225 for the illegal immigration reform part of his own comprehensive immigration reform scheme under the name of Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007. Probably more immigration reforms bills may be introduced by other legislators before and during the Comprehensive Immigration Reform debate in the Senate next month. As we summarized on 04/22/2007, there have been developing compromises along the lines of key issues which we highlighted in the posting and media start predicting that because of these compromises, the CIR may have a better chance to pass this year than last year.
Well, we are only inches away from the door steps of May 2007. After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
hairstyles 1997 F150 Ford Truck
nrk
10-06 06:07 PM
Done
optimystic
04-21 03:07 PM
One of my colleagues with RD July 27th at NSC got his approval last monday. He is EB2 - I. And the processing dates at NSC is not current for him either.
My RD is July 30th at NSC !! Hoping for good news soon !
My RD is July 30th at NSC !! Hoping for good news soon !
vinzak
01-20 04:14 PM
I have observed that typically after becoming great, have a tendency to hide his/her EB3 roots. I mean, who'll hire you as a CEO or rocket scientist if they knew you used to be an EB3.
Obama's father was a Kenyan EB3, but Obama insists his father was an EB2. The labor certification that the white house has put out for Barack Obama is clearly a fake.
It's sad but true, America still judges you not by the content of your character but the color of your labor certification.
I propose that EB3s append "EB3" to their name (like Ganesh Teesravarg ME(Comp Sci.), EB3) so that they get more visibility, and ppl realize they live among us, and with some help can actually be productive members of society.
Obama's father was a Kenyan EB3, but Obama insists his father was an EB2. The labor certification that the white house has put out for Barack Obama is clearly a fake.
It's sad but true, America still judges you not by the content of your character but the color of your labor certification.
I propose that EB3s append "EB3" to their name (like Ganesh Teesravarg ME(Comp Sci.), EB3) so that they get more visibility, and ppl realize they live among us, and with some help can actually be productive members of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment