kum31
10-01 09:53 PM
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
indrajal
11-02 04:46 AM
I have the exact same problem. i have been working over at USA for past 5 years and i have renewd my visa without any problems. since last year i changed my company and went to delhi consulate for visa renewal. i assumed it would be a routine renewal but i got a green slip i.e. 221(g). a lot of people in my line seemed dejected as well.
now they asked me to bring following documents:
1. I-797, LCA and other documents
2. letter from end client, itinerary of services and contract.
3. petitioner's fed tax returns for last two years.
4. in the others section they asked me to get employment contract, petitioner, vendor, client contracts.
my question is the line 4. If anyone can help me regarding this then i will be forever grateful.
please tell me what is Employment contract, Petitioner , vendor, client contract?
i have return flight booked next week. Please help
now they asked me to bring following documents:
1. I-797, LCA and other documents
2. letter from end client, itinerary of services and contract.
3. petitioner's fed tax returns for last two years.
4. in the others section they asked me to get employment contract, petitioner, vendor, client contracts.
my question is the line 4. If anyone can help me regarding this then i will be forever grateful.
please tell me what is Employment contract, Petitioner , vendor, client contract?
i have return flight booked next week. Please help
gk_2000
05-20 05:31 PM
I have Master's degree from US and have been with the company for 6yrs. This is the response from my Attorney on porting to EB2 category. My I485 was filed during July 2007. What can i do to be able to file a new PERM LC for porting to EB2 category without affecting my I485 application? Please advise.
Thank you for your email inquiring about filing a new PERM labor certification (PERM LC) application to qualify for the EB-2 preference category. A final determination has been made on whether a new PERM LC can be filed.
Regulations that govern the PERM Labor Certification process do not permit an employer to file a new PERM LC application for the sole purpose of shortening the wait time in immigrant visa preference categories. Company will not file a new PERM LC unless it is clearly required by regulation.
We completed our research and legal analysis. The purpose of the research was to determine whether you can still benefit from your current case, or whether substantial job changes require, by law, a new PERM LC application to be filed on your behalf.
Our final assessment is that while some job changes have occurred, the changes are not substantial in the context of labor certification regulations. Please note that while the group, products and/or daily tasks in your employment may be different, these changes are not substantial from an immigration perspective and do not require a new PERM LC. In addition, portability provisions of the law allow considerable flexibility for job changes when an I-485 Adjustment of Status application has been filed.
This is not an internal policy matter, rather company's compliance with U.S. Department of Labor regulations that govern the PERM LC process.
Translation: We are an a$$#ole company that is not interested in retaining their talent. You are better off trying somewhere else and getting your GC, and coming back and joining us, then sc*** us by becoming our boss
Thank you for your email inquiring about filing a new PERM labor certification (PERM LC) application to qualify for the EB-2 preference category. A final determination has been made on whether a new PERM LC can be filed.
Regulations that govern the PERM Labor Certification process do not permit an employer to file a new PERM LC application for the sole purpose of shortening the wait time in immigrant visa preference categories. Company will not file a new PERM LC unless it is clearly required by regulation.
We completed our research and legal analysis. The purpose of the research was to determine whether you can still benefit from your current case, or whether substantial job changes require, by law, a new PERM LC application to be filed on your behalf.
Our final assessment is that while some job changes have occurred, the changes are not substantial in the context of labor certification regulations. Please note that while the group, products and/or daily tasks in your employment may be different, these changes are not substantial from an immigration perspective and do not require a new PERM LC. In addition, portability provisions of the law allow considerable flexibility for job changes when an I-485 Adjustment of Status application has been filed.
This is not an internal policy matter, rather company's compliance with U.S. Department of Labor regulations that govern the PERM LC process.
Translation: We are an a$$#ole company that is not interested in retaining their talent. You are better off trying somewhere else and getting your GC, and coming back and joining us, then sc*** us by becoming our boss
go_getter007
12-20 12:23 PM
Given her passport is stamped, she can re-enter the US with her H4. No need for AP. It doesn't matter if her visa expires in early Jan.
GG_007
Yes. she has a valid H4 Visa stamping till Jan 10. and she is landing in Dec last week.
Thanks in advance
GG_007
Yes. she has a valid H4 Visa stamping till Jan 10. and she is landing in Dec last week.
Thanks in advance
more...
papajon
06-18 02:20 PM
I received the very heartbreaking news that my EB3 PERM application filed OCT 2007 (with audit) was denied. Audit was requesting a copy of the Newspaper AD which the lawyer sent last NOV 2007. Reson for denial was because the copy that the DOL recieved was not clear and some words as part of the Newspaper name was missing.... An appeal will be filed soon.
Any suggestions from the gurus?
I have bachelors with more than 5 years of experience, is it adviseable to file new PERM under EB2 category?
For people who filed motion or an appeal, could you please post your feedbacks/experiences?
also, im on my 7th yr extension and it will expire on FEB2010... will I have problems with my extension?
Any suggestions from the gurus?
I have bachelors with more than 5 years of experience, is it adviseable to file new PERM under EB2 category?
For people who filed motion or an appeal, could you please post your feedbacks/experiences?
also, im on my 7th yr extension and it will expire on FEB2010... will I have problems with my extension?
mkkcbe
11-01 01:22 PM
Completely agree with you! It is just frustrating to know that NSC takes such a long time to process I-140s. TSC is much better with respect to I-140 processing.
I am at the last year of H1. So I hope they will approve my case soon, so that I can go for 3 yr extension.
I am at the last year of H1. So I hope they will approve my case soon, so that I can go for 3 yr extension.
more...
Anders �stberg
January 17th, 2005, 05:03 AM
From last nights local game. Some pictures from the seats, some from the penalty box area. ISO1600, 1/500s and f/2 or f/2.8 in manual mode. Sports really is a challenge, I still don't get many keepers - I noticed this time I tend to rush things and probably cause a lot of bluriness through camera shake, and don't follow the players well enough for the AF to lock on reliably. Practice, practice...
Comments are very welcome! :)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0568.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0596.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0605.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0621.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0609.jpg
Comments are very welcome! :)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0568.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0596.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0605.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0621.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/HaningeHockey_2005-01-16/JH5Q0609.jpg
diptam
08-13 11:18 AM
Thanks for the update - Lets give them 1 more week for clearing July 2nd.
They are human beings too like us.
By the way 765 they say compliant till 7/2 which means individually filed 765 not the 765 which was sent with 485 package - Right ?
Thanks!
Here is the update we were expecting to see on Aug 10th and now available (be first one to see): http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes081007.pdf
I-140(8/3) I-485(8/3)
NSC 7/1 7/1
TSC 7/30 6/26
I-140(8/10) I-485(8/10)
NSC 7/1 7/1
TSC 7/31 6/28
NSC no progress at all
TSC 1day for I-140 & 2days fro I-485
PS: None of the centers entered in Jul 2nd....can't imagine the delays after they enter Jul 2nd....mass number of applications....
They are human beings too like us.
By the way 765 they say compliant till 7/2 which means individually filed 765 not the 765 which was sent with 485 package - Right ?
Thanks!
Here is the update we were expecting to see on Aug 10th and now available (be first one to see): http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes081007.pdf
I-140(8/3) I-485(8/3)
NSC 7/1 7/1
TSC 7/30 6/26
I-140(8/10) I-485(8/10)
NSC 7/1 7/1
TSC 7/31 6/28
NSC no progress at all
TSC 1day for I-140 & 2days fro I-485
PS: None of the centers entered in Jul 2nd....can't imagine the delays after they enter Jul 2nd....mass number of applications....
more...
saimrathi
07-09 12:46 PM
PLease post the link..
DOS issued one more bulletine today on 9th July 2007 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
DOS issued one more bulletine today on 9th July 2007 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Raj_2009
12-16 06:25 PM
Dear Yaja,
Thanks for your detailed response and i see that there is a valid point in yours.
Pl. let me know If i go for stamping even with out any paystub from the new employer? (joining after 15 days(1-15)) My new employer has agreed to give a letter of employment. Is that enough for the stamping?. If the consulate officer asks for the latest pay stub in my case, can I tell him that I do not have and I have only the old employers pay stub?
Thanks in anticipation.
Regards,
Raj
Thanks for your detailed response and i see that there is a valid point in yours.
Pl. let me know If i go for stamping even with out any paystub from the new employer? (joining after 15 days(1-15)) My new employer has agreed to give a letter of employment. Is that enough for the stamping?. If the consulate officer asks for the latest pay stub in my case, can I tell him that I do not have and I have only the old employers pay stub?
Thanks in anticipation.
Regards,
Raj
more...
ken
04-08 02:24 PM
Hello gurus
I filled my 485 in july fiasco at Nebraska service center. Today I recieved an online update on my and my wife case (485) saying that case has been transfered to miami,fl , the reason is because it falls under that jurisdiction.
I am EB3 India, PD Aug 2002.
I already recieved my EAD,AP
Let me know your thoughts or if some one else also recieve the same update.
Thanks in advance..
I filled my 485 in july fiasco at Nebraska service center. Today I recieved an online update on my and my wife case (485) saying that case has been transfered to miami,fl , the reason is because it falls under that jurisdiction.
I am EB3 India, PD Aug 2002.
I already recieved my EAD,AP
Let me know your thoughts or if some one else also recieve the same update.
Thanks in advance..
smisachu
09-28 10:25 PM
I got my FP done today. I received the FP notice around 12th Sep. My receipt date is 4th Sep. Case is in Tx.
Appointment time was 2PM. We reached 15mins early. The time does not matter. Long line to check and accept the form. Then we were issued numbers and asked to wait for the numbers. For the amount of people waiting for FP, they did a good and fast job. Mostly young kids and they were fast.
Did FP and took Picture of self and wife and we were done. It took a little over 1 hour. I carried my passport but showd Drivers licence and that was all that was needed. Hope this helps.
Appointment time was 2PM. We reached 15mins early. The time does not matter. Long line to check and accept the form. Then we were issued numbers and asked to wait for the numbers. For the amount of people waiting for FP, they did a good and fast job. Mostly young kids and they were fast.
Did FP and took Picture of self and wife and we were done. It took a little over 1 hour. I carried my passport but showd Drivers licence and that was all that was needed. Hope this helps.
more...
dkann
08-27 02:35 PM
Got 2yr EAD for both me and my wife with expiration date in August 2010.
I 140 still pending. (Filed July '07, concurrent).
I 140 still pending. (Filed July '07, concurrent).
gc_wow
08-02 11:13 PM
It looks like Mr.Obama is Changing the wrong thing, Immigration policy badly needs an update, he needs to fix that first, cool aid wont help.If the roof is broken you need to fix roof, that should be the priority, instead painting neighbours door and putting christmas lights in summer will not fix the problem. Harvard should take his degree back.
more...
ultimo
10-02 10:07 AM
it wont be a uscis mistake . who knows , too much application they are carreid away
I_need_GC
07-24 10:41 AM
tricky question general rule.
1 week (not recommended questionable by USCIS if complained by anyone):eek:
1 month Questionable by USCIS
2 months ok might not have problems at passport filing
3 months preferable relatively safe
4 months plus you are pretty safe.
Hope this helps
1 week (not recommended questionable by USCIS if complained by anyone):eek:
1 month Questionable by USCIS
2 months ok might not have problems at passport filing
3 months preferable relatively safe
4 months plus you are pretty safe.
Hope this helps
more...
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
overhere
07-18 08:08 AM
Schedule A visa is not available. Schedule A simply means that we are exempted from LC. All we need is to file I-140 concurrent with I-485/EAD/AP.
Our visa is also EB3.
Now, the question is whether we need to get July priority date or we can get an August priority date and also qualified under this scheme?
i know what schedule a is. i just thought it's no longer available since it's not published on the visa bulletin.
as for your question, i think you're referring to july or august visa bulletin. all those who are qualified to file 485 (concurrently with 140 or not) are covered under the original july visa bulletin as long as the application is received on or before august 17th.
from: http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
"For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion."
Our visa is also EB3.
Now, the question is whether we need to get July priority date or we can get an August priority date and also qualified under this scheme?
i know what schedule a is. i just thought it's no longer available since it's not published on the visa bulletin.
as for your question, i think you're referring to july or august visa bulletin. all those who are qualified to file 485 (concurrently with 140 or not) are covered under the original july visa bulletin as long as the application is received on or before august 17th.
from: http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
"For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion."
waitingGC
03-09 08:47 AM
It says India took a total of 41254 visas, but if you total the columns including family pref it comes to 32030. What am I missing?? Anyway how does it matter...
Did you add up the visas issued in Indian?
Did you add up the visas issued in Indian?
newuser
10-05 10:50 AM
Its probably a planned leak by the Obama Administration to the press to placate the hispanic lobby. Just chill... nothing's gonna happen.
Its a ploy to keep the immigration community at peace. I don't have high hopes for CIR until 2011. One thing we can keep doing is meeting the lawmakers and making them aware of the issues facing High Skilled Immigrants.
Its a ploy to keep the immigration community at peace. I don't have high hopes for CIR until 2011. One thing we can keep doing is meeting the lawmakers and making them aware of the issues facing High Skilled Immigrants.
atul555
09-02 02:17 PM
Your previous thread, you narrate the incident. You are pleaded guilty in the court. But now you are saying the court dismiss because unintentional stealing.
Which is correct ???
You are stealing/swallowing your words ??? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEE YOUR PREVIOUS THREAD.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/24389-travel-on-ap-to-india-shoplifting-case.html
I don't think he is here to be tried in public by idiots like you. Why is this site full of self righteous punks who reply back to put others down. I saw similar set of replies for a woman who sought help regarding her status for entering the country without passport from Canada (which was legal pre 9/11) and then divorcing the dude she was married to. Some righteous pricks called her names and gave red dots generously.
Seriously if you don't have constructive advise just keep your mouth shut. Nobody needs you to bring your vigilantism and judgement ion other people. A few too many pricks are the reason a lot of us get turned off of this site.
The OP needs some advice irrespective of how he got to this situation.
Which is correct ???
You are stealing/swallowing your words ??? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEE YOUR PREVIOUS THREAD.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/24389-travel-on-ap-to-india-shoplifting-case.html
I don't think he is here to be tried in public by idiots like you. Why is this site full of self righteous punks who reply back to put others down. I saw similar set of replies for a woman who sought help regarding her status for entering the country without passport from Canada (which was legal pre 9/11) and then divorcing the dude she was married to. Some righteous pricks called her names and gave red dots generously.
Seriously if you don't have constructive advise just keep your mouth shut. Nobody needs you to bring your vigilantism and judgement ion other people. A few too many pricks are the reason a lot of us get turned off of this site.
The OP needs some advice irrespective of how he got to this situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment