unseenguy
06-18 06:41 PM
divide and rule! Last I know thats how Britain ruled India! and got control of India
wallpaper hair weeds season 1 cover.
karl65
03-26 12:24 PM
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-hiring/
Looks the FAQs questions:
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-hiring/employment-employer-hiring-faq.html
Those are some of your rights you should know when you have an interview. Find more information in your local area (DOL office)
Looks the FAQs questions:
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-hiring/employment-employer-hiring-faq.html
Those are some of your rights you should know when you have an interview. Find more information in your local area (DOL office)
BharatPremi
09-24 05:17 PM
Number 2) and hence number 3) are definitely wrong.
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
2011 weeds season 1 dvd cover.
ak_2004
05-06 10:16 PM
Hi friends,
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
more...
Almond
08-09 06:50 PM
I called today to help a friend who has been stuck in namecheck status for almost a year and a half and spoke to an immigration officer who calmly explained to me that the name check isn't done only nationally but also "internationally" meaning, not only do they do a background check on you in the US, they also look you up in your country of origin. In all my time reading about this I have never heard her version before, so I had assumed the namecheck was only done at the national level. No wonder it's taking so long, with the FBI waiting for a response from those countries. :(
Lasantha
05-15 12:35 PM
Do I have to have 140 approved for getting EAD, I can file jointly now --- which I will be - So will i get my EAD before 140 is approved.
Thanks
No, you can still get your EAD while your I-140 is pending as long as your PD is current and you can file for 485. But I would not change jobs with AC21 till the I-140 is approved, if I were you.
Thanks
No, you can still get your EAD while your I-140 is pending as long as your PD is current and you can file for 485. But I would not change jobs with AC21 till the I-140 is approved, if I were you.
more...
nk2006
10-28 12:47 PM
From IV: IV commends the initiative taken by it's members nk2006, pd_recpaturing, ItsNotfunny and others. As these members have observed, we all know that any one who has filed for AOS/I-485 can potentially be hit with this issue, especially in the current job market situations. If you believe in the old adage prevention is better than cure, this is an action item you have to subscribe to. It will be only a matter of time the number of such denials is going to spike.
In recent weeks there has been a spate of I485 denials by USCIS in the AC21 cases. In most of these cases, the underlying I-140 has been revoked by previous employer. But AC21 regulations and related memo’s require that I485’s should not be denied based on that – provided I485 has been pending for more than 180 days and the applicant has changed to a new job that is same or similar. USCIS has been rejecting cases without even issuing a NOID – again required by AC21 regulations. So USCIS is not following AC21 regulations and related field memo’s for whatever the reasons.
Obviously this will have a very bad impact on us – in addition to tremendous amount of stress it can have very bad economic implications including loss of job. In the current economic conditions we cannot afford to lose the job change flexibility provided by AC21 regulations. IV has started a campaign to fight this.
After a brief campaign to write to Ombudsman, it has been decided to intensify this campaign and write to various officials in USCIS hierarchy. IV core members have been actively involved in coming up with a strategy and are actively supporting this effort. By sending large number of letters we can draw their attention to this issue and resolve as quickly as possible. There are other strategies that are being discussed and will be underway soon to tackle this issue. This is the first and the most important step up on which other steps depend.
I request all the members to start sending the following 4 letters. For your convenience the letters have been completely written including addresses to be sent – all you have to do is download following 4 google documents – add the date, your name and address – and send it to the address provided on each letter.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_1d3mzhr6c
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_2fp3nrhvb
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_3d8h2x7dr
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_4fxnvq9tw
To reiterate: You have to send 4 letters – these letters can be downloaded at the above URL’s. Edit the document to add current date, name, address etc. and mail it (regular mail). After doing that, please update the poll so we know how many letters are being sent.
To get more background on this issue and see what has been done so far, please see these two threads: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22052;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716
To achieve positive results we need to send these letters in large numbers - please send them today and let everyone else be aware of this effort. Thank you.
Request to core/web site admin: can you please add a link to this thread on the IV main page to get better coverage to this campaign - thanks.
In recent weeks there has been a spate of I485 denials by USCIS in the AC21 cases. In most of these cases, the underlying I-140 has been revoked by previous employer. But AC21 regulations and related memo’s require that I485’s should not be denied based on that – provided I485 has been pending for more than 180 days and the applicant has changed to a new job that is same or similar. USCIS has been rejecting cases without even issuing a NOID – again required by AC21 regulations. So USCIS is not following AC21 regulations and related field memo’s for whatever the reasons.
Obviously this will have a very bad impact on us – in addition to tremendous amount of stress it can have very bad economic implications including loss of job. In the current economic conditions we cannot afford to lose the job change flexibility provided by AC21 regulations. IV has started a campaign to fight this.
After a brief campaign to write to Ombudsman, it has been decided to intensify this campaign and write to various officials in USCIS hierarchy. IV core members have been actively involved in coming up with a strategy and are actively supporting this effort. By sending large number of letters we can draw their attention to this issue and resolve as quickly as possible. There are other strategies that are being discussed and will be underway soon to tackle this issue. This is the first and the most important step up on which other steps depend.
I request all the members to start sending the following 4 letters. For your convenience the letters have been completely written including addresses to be sent – all you have to do is download following 4 google documents – add the date, your name and address – and send it to the address provided on each letter.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_1d3mzhr6c
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_2fp3nrhvb
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_3d8h2x7dr
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_4fxnvq9tw
To reiterate: You have to send 4 letters – these letters can be downloaded at the above URL’s. Edit the document to add current date, name, address etc. and mail it (regular mail). After doing that, please update the poll so we know how many letters are being sent.
To get more background on this issue and see what has been done so far, please see these two threads: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22052;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716
To achieve positive results we need to send these letters in large numbers - please send them today and let everyone else be aware of this effort. Thank you.
Request to core/web site admin: can you please add a link to this thread on the IV main page to get better coverage to this campaign - thanks.
2010 2011 weeds season 3 dvd cover.
alias
08-07 11:13 AM
Yes, that is the part of the problem
Dude, if that is your problem you should be in EB10, you can't even perform your job well and therefore should be under least desired category...
Dude, if that is your problem you should be in EB10, you can't even perform your job well and therefore should be under least desired category...
more...
sheela
09-11 09:27 PM
I will call as many
hair weeds season 1 dvd cover.
logiclife
07-09 07:19 PM
The message no longer appears on USCIS portal now.
I think they are reading our portals:)
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Its still there.
I think they are reading our portals:)
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Its still there.
more...
immigrationvoice1
04-17 03:33 PM
I have sent an email to the id listed on that site (osccrt@usdoj.gov)with emails from Capital One which says they are not in favor of EADs. Will update once I hear back.
Here is the response for my email sent earlier which I received today. Advices are welcome:
Dear Mr. xxxxx:
Thank you for your e-mail inquiry received by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") on March 25, 2008. You inquired whether or not an employer engages in unlawful citizenship status discrimination if the employer rejects an applicant for employment because the applicant possesses an H-1B visa and a valid "EAD".
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, unfair documentary practices with respect to verification of employment eligibility, and retaliation. Citizenship status discrimination occurs when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. The Act does not protect all groups of workers from citizenship status discrimination. U.S. citizens, most permanent residents and temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Other classifications of workers like H-1B visa holders are not protected from citizenship status discrimination.
It is not possible to determine whether you suffered unlawful citizenship status discrimination based on the information you provided in your e-mail. If you believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination, you or your representative may file a charge of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee directly with OSC. OSC will review your complete charge and investigate to determine whether there is reason to believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination in violation of 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. For more information on the charge filing process, please visit our website at - http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc. In addition, individuals may download the charge form from this website. Please note that charges of discrimination must be filed within 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. You may send the completed charge form to OSC via facsimile at (202) 616-5509, or by first-class mail to: Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; NYAV Building, 9th Floor; Washington, D.C. 20530.
Thank you once again for your correspondence. We hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding immigration-related unfair employment practices, you may contact OSC at 1-800-255-8155 (toll-free).
Here is the response for my email sent earlier which I received today. Advices are welcome:
Dear Mr. xxxxx:
Thank you for your e-mail inquiry received by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") on March 25, 2008. You inquired whether or not an employer engages in unlawful citizenship status discrimination if the employer rejects an applicant for employment because the applicant possesses an H-1B visa and a valid "EAD".
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, unfair documentary practices with respect to verification of employment eligibility, and retaliation. Citizenship status discrimination occurs when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. The Act does not protect all groups of workers from citizenship status discrimination. U.S. citizens, most permanent residents and temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Other classifications of workers like H-1B visa holders are not protected from citizenship status discrimination.
It is not possible to determine whether you suffered unlawful citizenship status discrimination based on the information you provided in your e-mail. If you believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination, you or your representative may file a charge of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee directly with OSC. OSC will review your complete charge and investigate to determine whether there is reason to believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination in violation of 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. For more information on the charge filing process, please visit our website at - http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc. In addition, individuals may download the charge form from this website. Please note that charges of discrimination must be filed within 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. You may send the completed charge form to OSC via facsimile at (202) 616-5509, or by first-class mail to: Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; NYAV Building, 9th Floor; Washington, D.C. 20530.
Thank you once again for your correspondence. We hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding immigration-related unfair employment practices, you may contact OSC at 1-800-255-8155 (toll-free).
hot house weeds season 5 cover.
nixstor
06-15 01:27 PM
I shopped around yesterday for lawyers coz I wanted to fire my lawyer (my company's lawyer) and get my own.
Turns out, they are all very very busy and some of them are refusing to take on new cases. The ones that do accept new cases are asking for something like $3,000 just to file 485/EAD/AP for primary appliant and spouse.
Although its hard to get confidence in doing this on your own, its also hard to shell out $3,000 just to fill out forms and have a pair of eyes look over it. And after $3000, there is no guarantee that the lawyer's work would be perfect either coz they too, make mistakes as the paperwork (which 90% of immigration work) is really done by paralegals who dont care as much as they should.
There are lot of people on portal who have filed 485 and EAD/AP on their own. I will link some threads here as I find them. And most people renew their EAD and AP on their own coz they would have left their sponsoring employer and they would be pretty much in charge of everything. So if people can file EAD./AP on their own, then the intial 485 is only one more form.
Very true. If people can file for EAD & AP, Why not 485? Its no rocket science. All that we need is a correct list of documents and letter(s) needed from our employer. Here is what I found so far reading 485 form
1) If we have an approved 140 petition, we do not need to provide a copy of the labor certificate.
2) We need to submit the labor cert if we have an I 140 pending.
3) We need an employment letter from our employer stating that the job is still available and the salary to be paid.
4) No need for G-28 for any form that is being filed by yourself. If some one else is representing you, then they will file a form G-28
Please add more info as you find.
Turns out, they are all very very busy and some of them are refusing to take on new cases. The ones that do accept new cases are asking for something like $3,000 just to file 485/EAD/AP for primary appliant and spouse.
Although its hard to get confidence in doing this on your own, its also hard to shell out $3,000 just to fill out forms and have a pair of eyes look over it. And after $3000, there is no guarantee that the lawyer's work would be perfect either coz they too, make mistakes as the paperwork (which 90% of immigration work) is really done by paralegals who dont care as much as they should.
There are lot of people on portal who have filed 485 and EAD/AP on their own. I will link some threads here as I find them. And most people renew their EAD and AP on their own coz they would have left their sponsoring employer and they would be pretty much in charge of everything. So if people can file EAD./AP on their own, then the intial 485 is only one more form.
Very true. If people can file for EAD & AP, Why not 485? Its no rocket science. All that we need is a correct list of documents and letter(s) needed from our employer. Here is what I found so far reading 485 form
1) If we have an approved 140 petition, we do not need to provide a copy of the labor certificate.
2) We need to submit the labor cert if we have an I 140 pending.
3) We need an employment letter from our employer stating that the job is still available and the salary to be paid.
4) No need for G-28 for any form that is being filed by yourself. If some one else is representing you, then they will file a form G-28
Please add more info as you find.
more...
house weeds season 1 dvd cover.
desi3933
06-16 11:54 AM
.... Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?. If they do not extend H1, always new guys can keep coming on L1/H1 and the cost to employers will be much less. .....
>> Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?
This is a very good question. When I was on H-1B visa, at that time, it can not be extended beyond 6 years. At that time, people will move to home country/Canada for 1 one year, plan to move to O visa if qualified, will try to regain time for out of US time etc. The argument was gaining strength that person should get green card before her/his 6 years are up. To make matter worse, H1 and H4 time was counted together.
Now, rather than providing the long term solution of increasing the quota for green cards per year, EB based applicants were offered band-aid solution of extending H1 indefinitely beyond 6 years if labor is pending > 365 calendar days or I-140 is pending/approved. This was further sugar coated that if I-485 is not approved in standard processing time of 6 months, applicant can change GC job for same/similar classification. People were very happy with AC-21 and many thought (and they still think) that getting EAD is like a provisonal green card, as they can change job easily and employer can no longer "control" them.
Now, since H1 can be extended beyond 6 years, the arguement for faster green card has become weaker. Reason is simple, since applicant can work for "green card sposoring" employer for infinite time, even if I-485 is not filed.
In my opionion, ac-21 was a band-aid solution. Strangely enough, perople are still looking for more band-aid solutions.
Well, as they say, history repeats itelf.
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
>> Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?
This is a very good question. When I was on H-1B visa, at that time, it can not be extended beyond 6 years. At that time, people will move to home country/Canada for 1 one year, plan to move to O visa if qualified, will try to regain time for out of US time etc. The argument was gaining strength that person should get green card before her/his 6 years are up. To make matter worse, H1 and H4 time was counted together.
Now, rather than providing the long term solution of increasing the quota for green cards per year, EB based applicants were offered band-aid solution of extending H1 indefinitely beyond 6 years if labor is pending > 365 calendar days or I-140 is pending/approved. This was further sugar coated that if I-485 is not approved in standard processing time of 6 months, applicant can change GC job for same/similar classification. People were very happy with AC-21 and many thought (and they still think) that getting EAD is like a provisonal green card, as they can change job easily and employer can no longer "control" them.
Now, since H1 can be extended beyond 6 years, the arguement for faster green card has become weaker. Reason is simple, since applicant can work for "green card sposoring" employer for infinite time, even if I-485 is not filed.
In my opionion, ac-21 was a band-aid solution. Strangely enough, perople are still looking for more band-aid solutions.
Well, as they say, history repeats itelf.
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
tattoo wallpaper Weeds Season 1
gc28262
06-14 12:00 AM
I would like to point out the differences between H1B and L1
1. There is a yearly limit for H1B (65k + 20K) but L1s are limitless.
2. A minimum wage need clause is there for H1B but minimum wage is not required to be paid for L1s. There are people in L1A visas who are supposed to be Senior Managers are sometimes paid less than 60K per annum by these offshore companies. As although they are brough in L1A visa they are in fact developers.
3. Almost 99% of the L1s are from offshore companies whose main intention is to send the project/job to offshore, most of the H1Bs do not have this intention.
4. L1s cannot change their employer, so they are bound to follow what their offshore employer ask them to do i.e try to take the job offshore, H1Bs can change employers, they will not try to send the job to offshore as they will then eventually have tomove back to offshore.
So if we clearify these points even to the antis, I hope they will understand who is the real culprint for the employment scarcity. Each of these companies are moving thousands of jobs out of this country making the problems for Citizens/Green Card holders/H1Bs.
99.99% of all the L1s are not used as they were intended when the law was signed.
All these may be true. No matter how you convince antis, they won't support any foriegn worker here. They want all of us out.
Even if authorities bans all these L1s, outsourcing will not stop. On the contrary it will intensify.
Before the 2001 recession, many companies were reluctant to outsource their work to India or other countries. When recession hit in 2001, many companies overcame this inhibition and started outsourcing jobs in large scale.
If companies find more stumbling blocks to operate their business, they will find even more innovative ways to overcome those. Remember India is no longer a back office for a low end work now. Many companies have even moved their R&D to India.
1. There is a yearly limit for H1B (65k + 20K) but L1s are limitless.
2. A minimum wage need clause is there for H1B but minimum wage is not required to be paid for L1s. There are people in L1A visas who are supposed to be Senior Managers are sometimes paid less than 60K per annum by these offshore companies. As although they are brough in L1A visa they are in fact developers.
3. Almost 99% of the L1s are from offshore companies whose main intention is to send the project/job to offshore, most of the H1Bs do not have this intention.
4. L1s cannot change their employer, so they are bound to follow what their offshore employer ask them to do i.e try to take the job offshore, H1Bs can change employers, they will not try to send the job to offshore as they will then eventually have tomove back to offshore.
So if we clearify these points even to the antis, I hope they will understand who is the real culprint for the employment scarcity. Each of these companies are moving thousands of jobs out of this country making the problems for Citizens/Green Card holders/H1Bs.
99.99% of all the L1s are not used as they were intended when the law was signed.
All these may be true. No matter how you convince antis, they won't support any foriegn worker here. They want all of us out.
Even if authorities bans all these L1s, outsourcing will not stop. On the contrary it will intensify.
Before the 2001 recession, many companies were reluctant to outsource their work to India or other countries. When recession hit in 2001, many companies overcame this inhibition and started outsourcing jobs in large scale.
If companies find more stumbling blocks to operate their business, they will find even more innovative ways to overcome those. Remember India is no longer a back office for a low end work now. Many companies have even moved their R&D to India.
more...
pictures weeds season 1 dvd cover.
Ramba
09-26 06:33 PM
This is complete non-sense. See the fact of capitalistic approch. Reckless free market approch brought the country to (wall) street. If no regulation and control by the government, the CEOs/Captialist screw you and me. see Enron. See WAMU. The CEO of WAMU walks away with millions of $ after screwing the bank. Where did you studied socialist goverment do not create high tech job? Captalistic form of government is good only if, the CEOs/capitalists are Gandi/Budda.
dresses Weeds Season 1-5 DVD Boxset
gccovet
11-12 03:54 PM
I don't think thats a good idea. You collect all evidence and we represent at once.
Opinion?
I agree with you.
How about defining a deadline? We push to get all the info by the deadline and then send the whole bunch together.
All folks who were on conference calls, whose were willing to share their info, please do come forward and (scratch out your personal info.) send the documents to PD_recap.
PD_Recap, we can scan the documents to produce a tif.jpeg or pdf file. Let me know if you need help in that.
GCCovet
Opinion?
I agree with you.
How about defining a deadline? We push to get all the info by the deadline and then send the whole bunch together.
All folks who were on conference calls, whose were willing to share their info, please do come forward and (scratch out your personal info.) send the documents to PD_recap.
PD_Recap, we can scan the documents to produce a tif.jpeg or pdf file. Let me know if you need help in that.
GCCovet
more...
makeup weeds season 1 dvd cover.
soni7007
08-07 12:54 PM
U are saying - The person's GC category should be same all through out the GC process, irrespective of the technical advancements the person make during the course of the GC process. A person is porting only because he is qualified for the category, U folks are talking as if there is an open slot and everyone is clamoring for it.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
girlfriend hairstyles weeds season 1
abhijitp
07-31 06:07 PM
You are trying to say I can sign an application then mail it with just fee. You think they will accept without any Initial Evidence. I know about them relaxing condition on Medical. When did they relax it for all other Initial Evidence as well.
But I agree, these two things are different. Only medicals have been relaxed by USCIS via its press release. Since a lot of the lawyers have sent without some initial evidence, AILA should use its proven;-) negotiation skills to get USCIS to issue a new press release which ascertains that only singatures and filing fees are required at this time.
But I agree, these two things are different. Only medicals have been relaxed by USCIS via its press release. Since a lot of the lawyers have sent without some initial evidence, AILA should use its proven;-) negotiation skills to get USCIS to issue a new press release which ascertains that only singatures and filing fees are required at this time.
hairstyles dresses WEEDS season 1-5 13DVD
prasadn
09-23 05:23 PM
they are RD's not PD's
IF they were PD's we shouldnot be seeing anything after Jul 2007 [as those were the farthest PD's ever reached].
Seems logical, but on the other hand if that were to be the case, then why isn't there a spike in June-July '07 to reflect the deluge of 485 filings?
IF they were PD's we shouldnot be seeing anything after Jul 2007 [as those were the farthest PD's ever reached].
Seems logical, but on the other hand if that were to be the case, then why isn't there a spike in June-July '07 to reflect the deluge of 485 filings?
stuck_here
01-25 12:08 AM
Ask your attorney to resolve this through AILA.
I will try this.. but my company seems to like a 'wait-watch' approach regarding this.. :o
I will try this.. but my company seems to like a 'wait-watch' approach regarding this.. :o
hinvin66
09-20 01:34 PM
Hi pat123
The details are:
RD: 8/07/2007
ND: 9/17/2007
Hi hinvin66,
What is your I 485
NOTICE DATE? IS It 9/18/2007?
The details are:
RD: 8/07/2007
ND: 9/17/2007
Hi hinvin66,
What is your I 485
NOTICE DATE? IS It 9/18/2007?
No comments:
Post a Comment