pappu
08-09 10:34 AM
Questions for everyone to research and post the answers------
-- Is there any real example on any internet forum, website or blog where someone faced problem in citizenship because they left their sponsor employer before 6 months expired? Do not find opinion but a real proof.
-- Can any lawyer provide a case example to illustrate the above. We can go into detail, talk to USCIS and seek clarification.
-- Is there anywhere in the law, memo or rulebook that says 6 month employment is needed after getting green card.
-- Is there any real example on any internet forum, website or blog where someone faced problem in citizenship because they left their sponsor employer before 6 months expired? Do not find opinion but a real proof.
-- Can any lawyer provide a case example to illustrate the above. We can go into detail, talk to USCIS and seek clarification.
-- Is there anywhere in the law, memo or rulebook that says 6 month employment is needed after getting green card.
wallpaper (L-R) Sarah Butler as Jennifer, Rodney Eastman as Andy and Jeff Branson as
gcgamble
12-13 10:14 PM
I always wonder and think what we do more that cannot be done offshore in India. As a business owner you are always concerned about bottomline. I work for IBM and I am on short assignments at different client locations, during early 2000s some offices used to have exclusive american staff (or should say white) then it was Indians on H1 Bs and now there are more Indians in offices than americans and if I check who they are, 90% of the time they are on site from a outsourcing companies. So I see that as a trend. As a CIO you got to wonder if I employ 90 out 100 of my staff who are high skilled Indians here why cant I just go to India and get them for cheap and tell my fellow CIO buddies how I saved money and how they should also do it. So it is a combination of cost benefits and chain reaction.
Even I feel what I can I do which my fellow Indian in India cant do, since considering we went to same school etc. It is not like we are inventing rockets here we are all intelligent people to some degree and hard work is part of our blood so if I can do it I bet my neighbor can also do it.I think it not far when everything repeatable will be moved to India same as why you do not find very many americans laying a optic wire cable or digging a road, but almost 100% of the time the optic fibre company boss is American and usually white.
I understand CIO line of thinking ...he may see all indians around and think of offshoring ..but he dont realize the desi consultants are here through a preferred vendor who might be american who is getting business through this placement and he might be employing one american and so the chain goes on ....But when he says to CIOs and every one start doing the same ..then after some time the Job growth decreases, so is consumer spending ...And as a result ,this CIO may be layed off ,as a part of cost cutting measures and Outsource his job too ...:D
At the same time i dont know enough to take any side between free trade and protectionism....
Even I feel what I can I do which my fellow Indian in India cant do, since considering we went to same school etc. It is not like we are inventing rockets here we are all intelligent people to some degree and hard work is part of our blood so if I can do it I bet my neighbor can also do it.I think it not far when everything repeatable will be moved to India same as why you do not find very many americans laying a optic wire cable or digging a road, but almost 100% of the time the optic fibre company boss is American and usually white.
I understand CIO line of thinking ...he may see all indians around and think of offshoring ..but he dont realize the desi consultants are here through a preferred vendor who might be american who is getting business through this placement and he might be employing one american and so the chain goes on ....But when he says to CIOs and every one start doing the same ..then after some time the Job growth decreases, so is consumer spending ...And as a result ,this CIO may be layed off ,as a part of cost cutting measures and Outsource his job too ...:D
At the same time i dont know enough to take any side between free trade and protectionism....
bindas74
10-25 10:09 AM
You deserve a gc right away after such a long and painful wait. Dont lose hopes.
Hi eb3retro,
I see that your PD is Jan 2003. Mine is Mar 03. I thought I would ask you about your opininons.
So, do you think we will get our GC in 2009?
Do you think it would be better to move to EB2?
Thanks for your inputs.
Hi eb3retro,
I see that your PD is Jan 2003. Mine is Mar 03. I thought I would ask you about your opininons.
So, do you think we will get our GC in 2009?
Do you think it would be better to move to EB2?
Thanks for your inputs.
2011 Butler_Sarah_7488.jpg. LOS
satishku_2000
05-22 04:06 PM
DID YOU EVER MOVE WITHOUT REPORTING A CHANGE OF ADDRESS?? IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, THEN YOU ARE ALSO AN ILLEGAL... YOU QUALIFY FOR A Z VISA!!! YEPEEE!!!
If thats the case then I think at least some people are safe ...:)
If thats the case then I think at least some people are safe ...:)
more...
Macaca
07-10 08:57 AM
Media Matters Lou Dobbs section: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/shows/loudobbstonight
Here is a recent attack on undocumented "DREAM act" students exposed by Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200707060009?f=h_latest
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation � news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda � every day, in real time.
Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
Here is a recent attack on undocumented "DREAM act" students exposed by Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200707060009?f=h_latest
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation � news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda � every day, in real time.
Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
dish
01-10 04:37 PM
Hi all,
Now H1 period no longer counts against H4 period. As H4 is allowed to do volunteer I work, I had taken up few Volunteer Projects and done some Open Source Projects for keeping my Skills updated.
Is it advisable to put all these expeience in resume, while applying for a new H1B or only professional experience should be shown on the resume.
Advice please.
Now H1 period no longer counts against H4 period. As H4 is allowed to do volunteer I work, I had taken up few Volunteer Projects and done some Open Source Projects for keeping my Skills updated.
Is it advisable to put all these expeience in resume, while applying for a new H1B or only professional experience should be shown on the resume.
Advice please.
2010 Jennifer#39;s (Sarah Butler)
akela_topchi
07-06 10:00 PM
http://www.wandtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6756670
more...
sunny1000
05-30 10:18 AM
I applied on May18 for I-140 and will be applying to I485 soon.. and would get EAD...so what happens to EAD and AP...I cant beleive they are
waste..Probabaly people with pending I-140 will be subject to the new systems..??..what do you guys think??..Its not pratical to drive people down the Queue again..
Nothing will go th waste until this bill becomes the law. After that, you still have another year or more before the points system kicks in. It is when they start the points system (oct 2008) when they will look into this dreaded date of May 15 2007 and decide on people's fate. Until then, keep doing what you are doing.
waste..Probabaly people with pending I-140 will be subject to the new systems..??..what do you guys think??..Its not pratical to drive people down the Queue again..
Nothing will go th waste until this bill becomes the law. After that, you still have another year or more before the points system kicks in. It is when they start the points system (oct 2008) when they will look into this dreaded date of May 15 2007 and decide on people's fate. Until then, keep doing what you are doing.
hair Butler_Sarah_7467.jpg. LOS
eilsoe
02-03 06:37 PM
So did I!! =)
~nar nar! :P
~nar nar! :P
more...
kriskris
03-27 11:23 AM
For those who are NOT US Citizens or Permanent Residents, all the transactions like address change/renewal have to be done in person in TX. No online or mail access.
hot I Spit on Your Grave: Unrated
chakdepatte
08-08 10:44 AM
Hi,
Sorry i updated under the wrong thread.
ours was a paper filed on July 2nd. Card was mailed on 08/07/08. Still waiting for it to make it to the mail box.
I have not recieved any FP notice yet. Surprising I also saw a soft LUD on AP when care production got ordered for EAD but no updates on AP or FP yet.
Hope that helps
Oye
Chakdepatte.
Sorry i updated under the wrong thread.
ours was a paper filed on July 2nd. Card was mailed on 08/07/08. Still waiting for it to make it to the mail box.
I have not recieved any FP notice yet. Surprising I also saw a soft LUD on AP when care production got ordered for EAD but no updates on AP or FP yet.
Hope that helps
Oye
Chakdepatte.
more...
house I Spit on Your Grave
.jpg "I Spit on Your Grave (2010)")
nepaliboy
11-10 11:30 AM
no fp notice yet i am july 2nd filler
tattoo I Spit on Your Grave Photos
rahulpaper
11-27 08:00 PM
Count me in...No FP
more...
pictures Sarah Butler from I Spit On Your Grave (2010)
imm_pro
10-11 07:43 PM
Looks like you know a lot about non profit companies that sponsor cap exempt h1bs, can you please provide a list or a few jobs that are posted under this category...or atleast where to start looking for these jobs...?
These kind of cap exempt visas are only sponsered by Universities and very few research organizations....there arent many comapnies out there for non profit reasons..please dont throw suggestions/advices just for the heck of it...
These kind of cap exempt visas are only sponsered by Universities and very few research organizations....there arent many comapnies out there for non profit reasons..please dont throw suggestions/advices just for the heck of it...
dresses Butler_Sarah_7464.jpg. LOS
gcseeker2002
07-19 11:23 AM
For couple of weeks in 2001, when I was getting H1 transfer, I was without pay. I applied H1 transfer before old H1 expired, but got the receipt notice after few weeks and only after that I started working. Am I out of status ?
For that matter, is it out of status if one gets paid from 2 companies with
2 H1bs ? If one is on bench but getting paid by one company, starts working with 2nd company on new H1b?
For that matter, is it out of status if one gets paid from 2 companies with
2 H1bs ? If one is on bench but getting paid by one company, starts working with 2nd company on new H1b?
more...
makeup Butler_Sarah_7487.jpg. LOS
roseball
08-23 10:00 AM
I am in May 2003 EB3I boat. My employer is now trying to file my case in EB2. I have a master degree and 5 yrs experience prior to my EB3 filing in May 2003. The questions is regarding what to file and cost.
Do we need to file 1. PERM 2. I140 3. I485 all over again ? If so here are the fee for each step 1. 2750 2. 475 (1250) 3. 1010 each(2000 for applicant and spouse. The ones in () are legal fees. Is this sound reasonable ?
Your employer will have to file a PERM and I-140 and once I-140 is approved in EB-2 with earlier EB-3 PD, request USCIS to adjudicate your pending I-1485 using the newly approved EB-2 I-140. No need to file another I-485 if you already have one pending.
Regarding the fee, there is no filing fee for PERM. All the costs are related to advertising and lawyer fee. I have no idea how much the fee for the whole process is or what attorney's charge as I have never paid anything for any of my immigration process so far (11 yrs in US). Technically, you are not supposed to pay anything, only employer should pick up the fee. You can pay the premium processing fee wherever applicable.
Do we need to file 1. PERM 2. I140 3. I485 all over again ? If so here are the fee for each step 1. 2750 2. 475 (1250) 3. 1010 each(2000 for applicant and spouse. The ones in () are legal fees. Is this sound reasonable ?
Your employer will have to file a PERM and I-140 and once I-140 is approved in EB-2 with earlier EB-3 PD, request USCIS to adjudicate your pending I-1485 using the newly approved EB-2 I-140. No need to file another I-485 if you already have one pending.
Regarding the fee, there is no filing fee for PERM. All the costs are related to advertising and lawyer fee. I have no idea how much the fee for the whole process is or what attorney's charge as I have never paid anything for any of my immigration process so far (11 yrs in US). Technically, you are not supposed to pay anything, only employer should pick up the fee. You can pay the premium processing fee wherever applicable.
girlfriend I Spit on Your Grave
bidhanc
12-22 03:29 PM
Sorry partner, I was just sharing info.
Did not mean to imply you were wrong in any way. :-)
I merely posted what was on their website. Don't shoot the messenger....
Did not mean to imply you were wrong in any way. :-)
I merely posted what was on their website. Don't shoot the messenger....
hairstyles Butler_Sarah_7466.jpg. LOS
Libra
01-25 10:04 AM
bump
qplearn
12-12 02:03 PM
I meant the bulletin released in Jan of 2007 which would be for the following month which would mean Feb of 07.
nitpicking are we ?? :-))
Ok, thanks. Thought that was typo.
nitpicking are we ?? :-))
Ok, thanks. Thought that was typo.
Kitiara
02-07 09:50 AM
Either the beautiful princess or the wicked witch. Jury is still out on that one. :P
No comments:
Post a Comment