desi3933
06-25 02:07 PM
I came to US on Company A visa in Feb 2007... They filed for a H1b amendment and it got disapproved .. Company A asked me to transfer my Visa as they don't want to apply for a MTR ...
1. What was your original I-94 date before H-1B amendment was filed by Company A?
2. What was amendment for?
3. Why H-1B amendment was denied?
Please answer these questions, before I can put my opinion.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
1. What was your original I-94 date before H-1B amendment was filed by Company A?
2. What was amendment for?
3. Why H-1B amendment was denied?
Please answer these questions, before I can put my opinion.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
wallpaper 2010 Drake married Nicki
krishmunn
03-04 12:24 PM
I had a similar situation but there are no client site involved (in my case my office itself moved to a new location , albeit in the same Metro).
I inquired with some Attorney (the Employer's attroney is most unhelpful) and also did some research. Here is what I extracted from the Law text (20 CFR)
*******
655.715 Definitions.
Area of intended employment means the area within normal commuting distance of the place (address) of employment where the H�1B nonimmigrant is or will be employed. There is no rigid measure of distance which constitutes a normal commuting distance or normal commuting area, because there may be widely varying factual circumstances among different areas (e.g., normal commuting distances might be 20, 30, or 50 miles). If the place of employment is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or a Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), any place within the MSA or PMSA is deemed to be within normal commuting distance of the place of employment;
***
20 CFR 655.734 (a) (2)
(2) Where the employer places any H�1B nonimmigrant(s) at one or more worksites not contemplated at the time of filing the application, but which are within the area of intended employment listed on the LCA, the employer is required to post electronic or hard-copy notice(s) at such worksite(s), in the manner described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, on or before the date any H�1B nonimmigrant begins work.
(b) Documentation of the fourth labor condition statement. The employer shall develop and maintain documentation sufficient to meet its burden of proving the validity of the statement referenced in paragraph (a) of this section and attested to on Form ETA 9035 or 9035E. Such documentation shall include a copy of the dated notice and the name and address of the collective bargaining representative to whom the notice was provided. Where there is no collective bargaining representative, the employer shall note and retain the dates when, and locations where, the notice was posted and shall retain a copy of the posted notice.
****
Going by above (and also per my discussion with Attorneys and harvesting Atrtorney blogs),
1) when one move within the same Metro (MSA), no new LCA is required. What is required is that the LCA should be posted in the new location before H1 employee starts working .
2) When one move to a different Metro (or out of commutable area), a new LCA is required.
It is a controversy whether an amended H1 is required for all cases of new LCA. I have read one letter from USCIS to an Attorney where they say it is not required as long as a new LCA is approved before the move.
Hwoever, I have read in some Attorney blogs that USCIS insist for an amended H1 whenever a new LCA is filed. I will try to dig out that detail.
I inquired with some Attorney (the Employer's attroney is most unhelpful) and also did some research. Here is what I extracted from the Law text (20 CFR)
*******
655.715 Definitions.
Area of intended employment means the area within normal commuting distance of the place (address) of employment where the H�1B nonimmigrant is or will be employed. There is no rigid measure of distance which constitutes a normal commuting distance or normal commuting area, because there may be widely varying factual circumstances among different areas (e.g., normal commuting distances might be 20, 30, or 50 miles). If the place of employment is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or a Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), any place within the MSA or PMSA is deemed to be within normal commuting distance of the place of employment;
***
20 CFR 655.734 (a) (2)
(2) Where the employer places any H�1B nonimmigrant(s) at one or more worksites not contemplated at the time of filing the application, but which are within the area of intended employment listed on the LCA, the employer is required to post electronic or hard-copy notice(s) at such worksite(s), in the manner described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, on or before the date any H�1B nonimmigrant begins work.
(b) Documentation of the fourth labor condition statement. The employer shall develop and maintain documentation sufficient to meet its burden of proving the validity of the statement referenced in paragraph (a) of this section and attested to on Form ETA 9035 or 9035E. Such documentation shall include a copy of the dated notice and the name and address of the collective bargaining representative to whom the notice was provided. Where there is no collective bargaining representative, the employer shall note and retain the dates when, and locations where, the notice was posted and shall retain a copy of the posted notice.
****
Going by above (and also per my discussion with Attorneys and harvesting Atrtorney blogs),
1) when one move within the same Metro (MSA), no new LCA is required. What is required is that the LCA should be posted in the new location before H1 employee starts working .
2) When one move to a different Metro (or out of commutable area), a new LCA is required.
It is a controversy whether an amended H1 is required for all cases of new LCA. I have read one letter from USCIS to an Attorney where they say it is not required as long as a new LCA is approved before the move.
Hwoever, I have read in some Attorney blogs that USCIS insist for an amended H1 whenever a new LCA is filed. I will try to dig out that detail.
ameryki
07-14 01:54 PM
my lawyer says... apply now.. dont know what will be situ in october.. it might go forward.. backward...my pd is 10/2003.
he says since my medicals are over.. all docs are ready ... so he says file and be part of lawsuit..
is this wise idea...if i say yes.. he will file by next week..
i already sent money for my wife...
my company is not covering my wife's expenses.
the lawyer is charing 600 for legal and 745 for filing...
are these
reasonable fees
What is the lawyer charging you for your wife's application for?? If I am not mistaken all they have to do is add your wife's information alongwith your filing stating you are married and show a copy of marriage certificate as proof. Am I right here people?
he says since my medicals are over.. all docs are ready ... so he says file and be part of lawsuit..
is this wise idea...if i say yes.. he will file by next week..
i already sent money for my wife...
my company is not covering my wife's expenses.
the lawyer is charing 600 for legal and 745 for filing...
are these
reasonable fees
What is the lawyer charging you for your wife's application for?? If I am not mistaken all they have to do is add your wife's information alongwith your filing stating you are married and show a copy of marriage certificate as proof. Am I right here people?
2011 is nicki minaj and drake
GCNirvana007
10-05 11:11 PM
that was hilarious GCN007...BTW my wife got approved to finally....
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Thanks and great news on your wife's approval bud.
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Thanks and great news on your wife's approval bud.
more...
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
gopinathan
03-29 02:33 PM
so much for FIFO ... they say that they are approving PERM applied in June/July 09 and anyone I know is getting their approvals by above rate only.. your friend's PERM must be an outlier in terms of approvals. mine is Feb 2010.. need to wait another few months before PERM approval :)
My friend's PERM got approved in 5 days in Dec '09. His I-140 got approved in 3 weeks in March '10. This could be an exceptional case as I have not seen any other such approvals..
My friend's PERM got approved in 5 days in Dec '09. His I-140 got approved in 3 weeks in March '10. This could be an exceptional case as I have not seen any other such approvals..
more...
jcrajput
06-09 11:09 AM
Can we have a visa stamping in other country than India if you are in USA? or we must need stamping from India?
Appriciate your help.
Thanks
Appriciate your help.
Thanks
2010 Nicki Minaj and Drake Get
MissionImpossibleGC
08-24 11:34 AM
You can complain to DOL, if you have been paid less than a LCA amount. Also, you can complain to DOL, if the deduction of GC processing fee to DOL as it could have lowered the amount thats in your offer letter. You need have a proof that your company has deducted money for your GC from the paycheck.
BTW, You have no legal grounds to get the revenue (aka % the company earned) the company made out of you during your tenure.
In my paycheck and salary slips there are deduction but reason or description of the deduction are not mentioned. I have all salary slips with me. I am working on % based so some time even after deduction my anual salary is not less than 8 years old offer letter. My anual salary vary from 55k to 100k depending on project rate and lenth of projects in year. I find my own project since last 5 - 6 years and pay % to my greedy company for nothing. It took me 8 years to find out my company because my company is not a very small company and looks decent from top serface.
BTW, You have no legal grounds to get the revenue (aka % the company earned) the company made out of you during your tenure.
In my paycheck and salary slips there are deduction but reason or description of the deduction are not mentioned. I have all salary slips with me. I am working on % based so some time even after deduction my anual salary is not less than 8 years old offer letter. My anual salary vary from 55k to 100k depending on project rate and lenth of projects in year. I find my own project since last 5 - 6 years and pay % to my greedy company for nothing. It took me 8 years to find out my company because my company is not a very small company and looks decent from top serface.
more...
breddy2000
01-04 01:13 PM
Hi,
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
We were in similar situation sometime ago...Take all the documentation and leave country and come back. But this can be done only upon receival of H1 1797. I would suggest wait until 1-797 is obtained and decide based on the outcome.
BTW is she working now? If not, it is always better to keep mails/communication with the company that filed H1 to show that she was maintaing status and not getting paid..
Hope this helps.
PM me if you need any further help..
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
We were in similar situation sometime ago...Take all the documentation and leave country and come back. But this can be done only upon receival of H1 1797. I would suggest wait until 1-797 is obtained and decide based on the outcome.
BTW is she working now? If not, it is always better to keep mails/communication with the company that filed H1 to show that she was maintaing status and not getting paid..
Hope this helps.
PM me if you need any further help..
hair Nicki Minaj and Drake decided
tampacoolie
07-14 03:23 PM
Guys,
My lawyer is also suggesting to file next week. He had everything to go by July2 and now he wants to file ASAP. Any thoughts on this?. I am thinking this pure pot shots game with USCIS.
My lawyer is also suggesting to file next week. He had everything to go by July2 and now he wants to file ASAP. Any thoughts on this?. I am thinking this pure pot shots game with USCIS.
more...
p_aluri
04-01 05:38 PM
I am sorry to hear about your situation.
Your attorney may be completly wrong about the labor substitution. The USCIS has passed new rule, The labor will be voided once its passed 180days after approval. So the approved labors from your company has no value.
Did you try utilizing AC21 as your 140 approved and the 180days crossed?
Again I am not a lawyer, please talk to experienced attorneys.
Thank you,
Aluri
Hello folks,
i need some expert opinion here. These are my primary details.
COMPANY A:
1. Perm Labor - Nov 2006. (EB2)
2. I-140 approved - Nov 2007
3. I-485 filed - July 2007.
4 EAD - oct 2007
5 FP - Nov 2007
6 AP - Oct 2007
H1-B extension denied in dec 2007 due to variety of company A issues.
Invoked AC21 yesterday with company B.
COMPANY B: Bought substitution labor of Feb 2004 EB3.
I-140 filed : NSC : paper based filing no documents has been sent waiting for RFE on July 13 2007.
But my labor substitute on 140 has been used for somebody else by mistake and now company B says they have few other labors to substitute and they say we'll respond to the query saying that the original one has been used and please consider the second one. Attorney has made this mistake since many labors were filed at that time and the labor that they have used for me has been approved . Do you guys whatever the attorney is suggesting is going to work? Please let me know i haven't got an RFE yet..
Your attorney may be completly wrong about the labor substitution. The USCIS has passed new rule, The labor will be voided once its passed 180days after approval. So the approved labors from your company has no value.
Did you try utilizing AC21 as your 140 approved and the 180days crossed?
Again I am not a lawyer, please talk to experienced attorneys.
Thank you,
Aluri
Hello folks,
i need some expert opinion here. These are my primary details.
COMPANY A:
1. Perm Labor - Nov 2006. (EB2)
2. I-140 approved - Nov 2007
3. I-485 filed - July 2007.
4 EAD - oct 2007
5 FP - Nov 2007
6 AP - Oct 2007
H1-B extension denied in dec 2007 due to variety of company A issues.
Invoked AC21 yesterday with company B.
COMPANY B: Bought substitution labor of Feb 2004 EB3.
I-140 filed : NSC : paper based filing no documents has been sent waiting for RFE on July 13 2007.
But my labor substitute on 140 has been used for somebody else by mistake and now company B says they have few other labors to substitute and they say we'll respond to the query saying that the original one has been used and please consider the second one. Attorney has made this mistake since many labors were filed at that time and the labor that they have used for me has been approved . Do you guys whatever the attorney is suggesting is going to work? Please let me know i haven't got an RFE yet..
hot nicki-minaj-and-drake
unitednations
05-19 03:24 PM
background checks can mean all sorts of things
1) someone has similar name to you who may have applied for immigration benefit in the past (they think you may be that person and they have to manually rule it out; this involves finding files, examining them, etc.)
2) even though 140 is approved they could be going back and checking this. I personally know of one person who had eb3 approved, he had masters degree with priority date in 2002 and 485 pending. His case had been transferred to local office; he went for interview, they didn't know why he had been called for interview and just sent the case back to nebraska service center.
he then decides to do eb2 labor/140. gets it approved, swaps priority date, etc. He then gets 485 rfe for paystubs/w2's, etc., and then oddly they ask him for a better copy of his masters diploma.
He sends the rfe response. his case gets transferred again to local office. local office tells him that he is in background check and they are verifying the genuineness of his masters degree and have sent the information to consulate in India for investigation. This was two years ago and he has not received any result.
Background check means all sorts of things...
1) someone has similar name to you who may have applied for immigration benefit in the past (they think you may be that person and they have to manually rule it out; this involves finding files, examining them, etc.)
2) even though 140 is approved they could be going back and checking this. I personally know of one person who had eb3 approved, he had masters degree with priority date in 2002 and 485 pending. His case had been transferred to local office; he went for interview, they didn't know why he had been called for interview and just sent the case back to nebraska service center.
he then decides to do eb2 labor/140. gets it approved, swaps priority date, etc. He then gets 485 rfe for paystubs/w2's, etc., and then oddly they ask him for a better copy of his masters diploma.
He sends the rfe response. his case gets transferred again to local office. local office tells him that he is in background check and they are verifying the genuineness of his masters degree and have sent the information to consulate in India for investigation. This was two years ago and he has not received any result.
Background check means all sorts of things...
more...
house Nicki Minaj amp; Drake Got
ssbaruah@yahoo.com
03-01 08:26 PM
Hi,
Unfortunately, I have recently been laid off by my employer on Jan 09. Still I could not transfer my H1B, but I am in process to doing that. One of friend told me told me that I need to transfer my H1B with 2 months. My H1B visa is valid till 2011.
I already requested my ex-employer not to revoke my H1B.
My questions are �
1. How much time I will get to transfer my H1B ?
2. What about my families H4 visa status ?
3. If it is out of status issue , then what should me my immediate action ?
Thanks in advance!
Unfortunately, I have recently been laid off by my employer on Jan 09. Still I could not transfer my H1B, but I am in process to doing that. One of friend told me told me that I need to transfer my H1B with 2 months. My H1B visa is valid till 2011.
I already requested my ex-employer not to revoke my H1B.
My questions are �
1. How much time I will get to transfer my H1B ?
2. What about my families H4 visa status ?
3. If it is out of status issue , then what should me my immediate action ?
Thanks in advance!
tattoo Nicki Minaj and Drake.
dixie
02-12 07:36 PM
Also do you know which is more difficult to get approved EB3 or EB2 without raising any red flags ? I am trying to understand which one is safe to play.
EB3 is generally easier to pass scrutiny at the I-140 stage. If you are from ROW, however, switching to EB2 has a HUGE advantage - you are talking of the difference between waiting at 3-4 years to get even an EAD card and potentially getting your GC in an year (EB2 ROW).
If you are from India, there is no significant benefit to switching. The only difference is the date on which the PD is stuck - whether it is April 2001 or Jan 2003, the dates are going to remain there for the next decade absent CIR/SKILL. If CIR/SKILL does get passed, both will likely become current. Either way, you don't gain much although I see an inexplicable rush from EB3 India folks to jump to the EB2 bandwagon.
EB3 is generally easier to pass scrutiny at the I-140 stage. If you are from ROW, however, switching to EB2 has a HUGE advantage - you are talking of the difference between waiting at 3-4 years to get even an EAD card and potentially getting your GC in an year (EB2 ROW).
If you are from India, there is no significant benefit to switching. The only difference is the date on which the PD is stuck - whether it is April 2001 or Jan 2003, the dates are going to remain there for the next decade absent CIR/SKILL. If CIR/SKILL does get passed, both will likely become current. Either way, you don't gain much although I see an inexplicable rush from EB3 India folks to jump to the EB2 bandwagon.
more...
pictures Nicki Minaj amp; Drake Got
Templarian
08-27 05:58 PM
Shaking My Head
dresses Nicki and Drake get married in
diqingshen
07-16 09:19 AM
How can we make the scale lean towards our side?
Phone campaign?
Phone campaign?
more...
makeup In lame news, Drake and Nicki
kumarc123
05-19 11:10 AM
Why should Indian leader plead for your green card? This is a US immigration issue. US has to base its immigration based on its own interests. Don't get me wrong, even i am waiting for my Green Card. But i don't expect Indian Prime minister to work for my Green Card.
As a Indian Citizen NRI you are talking about having the right to ask the Prime Minister. Tomorrow you are probably willing to take the US citizenship too. You cannot just look at your personal needs and expect Indian PM to help you become an American Citizen. All i am trying to say is don't bring down the Indian PM just for your need to get a GC.
My friend,
to a certain extent I agree with your point. However I believe MR Singh could have initiated a dialog on Indian immigrants. Reason being most us, send our money back home, keep money in our accounts over there? Lets not forget the air tickets we bought to come over here, the loans we picked from there, all the taxes are paid to the government.
How many of us, buy properties over there, so my point is yes it not a direct concern of an Indian PM, but indirectly we are paying their fat bills or a polite version -- taxes. They should have brought that point.
As a Indian Citizen NRI you are talking about having the right to ask the Prime Minister. Tomorrow you are probably willing to take the US citizenship too. You cannot just look at your personal needs and expect Indian PM to help you become an American Citizen. All i am trying to say is don't bring down the Indian PM just for your need to get a GC.
My friend,
to a certain extent I agree with your point. However I believe MR Singh could have initiated a dialog on Indian immigrants. Reason being most us, send our money back home, keep money in our accounts over there? Lets not forget the air tickets we bought to come over here, the loans we picked from there, all the taxes are paid to the government.
How many of us, buy properties over there, so my point is yes it not a direct concern of an Indian PM, but indirectly we are paying their fat bills or a polite version -- taxes. They should have brought that point.
girlfriend Nicki Minaj And Drake Kiss.
txh1b
08-16 05:57 PM
I would say you have to mention it during the interview if asked. Discuss with your attorney.
hairstyles nicki minaj and drake gq.
jcrajput
07-21 03:51 PM
We are planning to travel India and getting stamped at Mumbai (H1, H4). After taking an appointment, how to send papers to Mumbai consulate from USA? I heard that someone has to go personally to submit the papers. Also, should we send papers to VFS or US Consulate?
Can anyone please guide or help?
Thank you so much.
Jignesh
Can anyone please guide or help?
Thank you so much.
Jignesh
roseball
03-29 03:34 PM
Read the Murthy article, looks like DOL is stepping up PERM approvals for non-audited cases (now let's just pray we who are waiting for PERM don't get audited!)
Best of luck to all!
MurthyDotCom : Stepped-Up PERM / LC Processing (http://murthy.com/news/n_stepup.html)
As per my attorney, number of PERM applications filed in 2nd half of 2009 is very low (He has some good contacts at Atlanta DOL). He was expecting all 2009 non-audited cases to be processed in a couple of months....Not getting audited is the key in PERM process. My PERM will be finally filed this week, and I am hoping its not going be audited (MS + 6 yrs or BS + 8 yrs exp, 4G Mobile Communications R&D) though my attorney feels it will be....Keeping my fingers crossed...A successful EB3 to Eb2 conversion seems to be the only hope...
Best of luck to all!
MurthyDotCom : Stepped-Up PERM / LC Processing (http://murthy.com/news/n_stepup.html)
As per my attorney, number of PERM applications filed in 2nd half of 2009 is very low (He has some good contacts at Atlanta DOL). He was expecting all 2009 non-audited cases to be processed in a couple of months....Not getting audited is the key in PERM process. My PERM will be finally filed this week, and I am hoping its not going be audited (MS + 6 yrs or BS + 8 yrs exp, 4G Mobile Communications R&D) though my attorney feels it will be....Keeping my fingers crossed...A successful EB3 to Eb2 conversion seems to be the only hope...
gc_chahiye
02-17 09:41 PM
U r absolutely wrong. No matter how many years u had on ur H1B, but if u switch over to EAD, ur H1B is history. It just cannot be revived. If u r so in deeply love with H1B, then u will need to reapply and fall under the regular annual quota ...
can you post a link to some website to back up that statement?
From what I know if you were counted under the H1 quota in the last 6 years, you can get off H1 go to EAD and come back to H1 without the need of a new petiton and annual quotas etc:
http://www.shusterman.com/h1bfaqaila.html
2. Is someone who obtained H-1B status three years ago, but has not been maintaining status for the past year, still subject to the quota?
If the individual was in the U.S. during all or part of that year, s/he is not subject to the quota, since AC21 section 103 amends INA section 214(g)(7) to make clear that anyone who already has been counted in the past six years would not be counted again unless eligible for another full six years. However, if the individual had spent that one year outside the U.S., under INS regulations s/he is eligible for another 6 years of H-1B status, and thus would be counted.
can you post a link to some website to back up that statement?
From what I know if you were counted under the H1 quota in the last 6 years, you can get off H1 go to EAD and come back to H1 without the need of a new petiton and annual quotas etc:
http://www.shusterman.com/h1bfaqaila.html
2. Is someone who obtained H-1B status three years ago, but has not been maintaining status for the past year, still subject to the quota?
If the individual was in the U.S. during all or part of that year, s/he is not subject to the quota, since AC21 section 103 amends INA section 214(g)(7) to make clear that anyone who already has been counted in the past six years would not be counted again unless eligible for another full six years. However, if the individual had spent that one year outside the U.S., under INS regulations s/he is eligible for another 6 years of H-1B status, and thus would be counted.