leoindiano
06-02 02:07 PM
Go to their website and look for consitutent services. Utilize their services ONLY if your's is a genuine problem and follow their instructions - write clearly what your problem is and what kind of help you are expecting. Spome of them are very helpful - they stay on top of the case till they get you a written decision
Nevermind, i found you worked in these 6 weeks and result of MTR is retroactive.
Nevermind, i found you worked in these 6 weeks and result of MTR is retroactive.
wallpaper YB wallpaper 1280 x 800 by
chicago60607
09-17 11:19 AM
Members are slowly but steadily getting seated .... my guess is that in about 15 minutes it should start
akred
07-14 07:26 PM
Done
2011 -wallpaper-1280x800-
Khujaokutta
03-26 10:44 PM
People may get LUD (not trying to demoralize just facts), but with this recession....koi chance naheeen of any date movement.......bullietin or no bullietin...just cut and past of past month.......as far as i am concerned, first my id was kutta, now its Khujao Kutta due to the itch caused by the GC wait....dont know what the id will be next...in short wait will continue....:D
more...
skdskd
01-30 05:12 PM
Voted....It's Question 22 Now
tnite
07-19 09:31 AM
PD: EB2 Mar 2005 India
Date Delivered To USCIS: July 2 , 9.01 AM signed by R.Mickels
Service Center: NSC
Rejected: Dont Know
Date Delivered To USCIS: July 2 , 9.01 AM signed by R.Mickels
Service Center: NSC
Rejected: Dont Know
more...
gc28262
01-28 04:39 PM
I didn't find where in the PDF AILA is saying the definition is illegal!
They provide one example a court ruling where the EE definition was established in the case of an insurance agent. But such an issue has already been address by the EE memo by USCIS (Temporary/Occasional Off-Site Employment).
Is it your own interpretation that the EE definition in the memo is illegal or did you read it somewhere in AILA's response?
AILA Memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf)
Page 3
The AAO�s analysis contained in non-precedent decisions but cited repeatedly by adjudicators to justify RFEs, NOIDs and Denials -- and now expressed in the AFM revisions regarding H-1B petitions -- begins with the proposition that the beneficiary in any employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant petition must be an �employee� of the petitioning employer. The AAO then notes that the term �employee� is not clearly defined anywhere in the INA and concludes that absent such a definition, under Darden and Clackamas, it must look to the common law definition of employee to determine who is and is not eligible for employment-based benefits under the INA.2 While the common law definition employs a multi-factor test, the AAO and subsequent adjudications, and the Neufeld Memorandum, have focused almost exclusively on one element: control.
AILA memo deals with multiple issues in the memo, not just consulting company scenario. (L1, Self sponsoring employee etc) Hence we can get lost while reading the memo. Central to the argument is "Common Law" that AILA hasn't gone in depth.
desi3933,
Please refer AILA memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf) as they have already detailed the law points in it.
Also you seem to be quoting USCIS documents. If USCIS was clear about the law, they wouldn't have issued this memo in the first place. If USCIS memo contradicts INA, INA prevails.
They provide one example a court ruling where the EE definition was established in the case of an insurance agent. But such an issue has already been address by the EE memo by USCIS (Temporary/Occasional Off-Site Employment).
Is it your own interpretation that the EE definition in the memo is illegal or did you read it somewhere in AILA's response?
AILA Memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf)
Page 3
The AAO�s analysis contained in non-precedent decisions but cited repeatedly by adjudicators to justify RFEs, NOIDs and Denials -- and now expressed in the AFM revisions regarding H-1B petitions -- begins with the proposition that the beneficiary in any employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant petition must be an �employee� of the petitioning employer. The AAO then notes that the term �employee� is not clearly defined anywhere in the INA and concludes that absent such a definition, under Darden and Clackamas, it must look to the common law definition of employee to determine who is and is not eligible for employment-based benefits under the INA.2 While the common law definition employs a multi-factor test, the AAO and subsequent adjudications, and the Neufeld Memorandum, have focused almost exclusively on one element: control.
AILA memo deals with multiple issues in the memo, not just consulting company scenario. (L1, Self sponsoring employee etc) Hence we can get lost while reading the memo. Central to the argument is "Common Law" that AILA hasn't gone in depth.
desi3933,
Please refer AILA memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf) as they have already detailed the law points in it.
Also you seem to be quoting USCIS documents. If USCIS was clear about the law, they wouldn't have issued this memo in the first place. If USCIS memo contradicts INA, INA prevails.
2010 Wallpapers 1280x800 px,
485Mbe4001
08-12 01:03 PM
If you look at the PD progress for EB3 I, the only movement was during March and April 07.
Oct 07 - 22Apr 01
Nov 07 - 22 Apr
.. - 1 May 01
.. - 1 May 01
.. - 8 May 01
.. - 1 Aug 01
.. Oct 01
.. Nov 01
.. Nov 01
and U there after.
if the recapture bill doesnt pass, we are looking at something similar this year too, very little movement. My guess is that EB 2 I is also going to retrogress a bit, simply because of the number of applicants in that category. EB 3 ROW will also see slow movement because of the distribution pattern.
Oct 07 - 22Apr 01
Nov 07 - 22 Apr
.. - 1 May 01
.. - 1 May 01
.. - 8 May 01
.. - 1 Aug 01
.. Oct 01
.. Nov 01
.. Nov 01
and U there after.
if the recapture bill doesnt pass, we are looking at something similar this year too, very little movement. My guess is that EB 2 I is also going to retrogress a bit, simply because of the number of applicants in that category. EB 3 ROW will also see slow movement because of the distribution pattern.
more...
msp1976
02-06 04:36 PM
I really don't understand here.
Sorry to confuse you ..
It is very difficult to make a prediction...The 7% country quota for china is satisfied already...So it could be this october
The only chance that it happens is that visa overflow from other categories into EB2China/India...For that to happen..Eb3 world has to become current.....
That would mean that more visa are available than can be used for Rest of world...Then CHINA/India would get some more than 7% country quota....
So it could be Oct 07 or if you are lucky... earlier....
If immigration reform happens..you would definately become current immedialtely...
Sorry to confuse you ..
It is very difficult to make a prediction...The 7% country quota for china is satisfied already...So it could be this october
The only chance that it happens is that visa overflow from other categories into EB2China/India...For that to happen..Eb3 world has to become current.....
That would mean that more visa are available than can be used for Rest of world...Then CHINA/India would get some more than 7% country quota....
So it could be Oct 07 or if you are lucky... earlier....
If immigration reform happens..you would definately become current immedialtely...
hair 3D Design Wallpaper 1280 X 800
vrs
07-19 07:51 AM
Contributed $20 using Bill Pay with more to follow.
more...
apple
10-09 10:33 PM
Parolees Resume H1B (or L-1) Status upon Admission or upon Approval of H/L Petition
�MurthyDotCom
The May 2000 memorandum clarified that an H1B (or L-1) nonimmigrant, who has traveled abroad and reentered the U.S. on AP "may apply for an extension of H1B or L-1 status, if there is a valid and approved petition." If the USCIS approves the petition, this "will have the effect of terminating the grant of parole and admitting the alien in the relevant nonimmigrant classification." Therefore, one's H1B (or L-1) status will be reinstated upon the approval of the petition for extension of status. In order to utilize these provisions, s/he should have resumed employment with the H1B (or L-1) employer following the paroled entry.
�MurthyDotCom
Similar Result if Employer Files H1B Amendment
�MurthyDotCom
The same effect would be achieved if the current employer files an amended petition. It can also be achieved if the individual works for the H1B employer, and later seeks to extend H1B status through a change of employer. Additionally, since the AP entry does not invalidate the approved H1B (or L-1) petition, the foreign national potentially could regain H (or L) status by traveling abroad and reentering with a valid H (or L) visa, and obtaining an H (or L) notation on the I-94 card at the port of entry. In these circumstances, the H (or L) status will be reinstated, giving one the benefit of continuing in that status for a length of time even if the I-485 ultimately is denied. Thus, when one wishes to maintain H1B (or L-1) status, which is often the case, this still may be accomplished, even if AP is used for entry at some stage in the process. This is particularly straightforward for individuals who have H1B (or L-1) status that will need to be extended shortly after their reentry into the U.S. The H (or L) extension, if approved, will put them back in H (or L) status, even if they last entered on AP. At the Murthy Law Firm, we also see many situations in which one uses AP for emergency travel or shorter trips, but then seeks the H (or L) visa on a later trip, when time allows for a visa application at the consulate.
�MurthyDotCom
The May 2000 memorandum clarified that an H1B (or L-1) nonimmigrant, who has traveled abroad and reentered the U.S. on AP "may apply for an extension of H1B or L-1 status, if there is a valid and approved petition." If the USCIS approves the petition, this "will have the effect of terminating the grant of parole and admitting the alien in the relevant nonimmigrant classification." Therefore, one's H1B (or L-1) status will be reinstated upon the approval of the petition for extension of status. In order to utilize these provisions, s/he should have resumed employment with the H1B (or L-1) employer following the paroled entry.
�MurthyDotCom
Similar Result if Employer Files H1B Amendment
�MurthyDotCom
The same effect would be achieved if the current employer files an amended petition. It can also be achieved if the individual works for the H1B employer, and later seeks to extend H1B status through a change of employer. Additionally, since the AP entry does not invalidate the approved H1B (or L-1) petition, the foreign national potentially could regain H (or L) status by traveling abroad and reentering with a valid H (or L) visa, and obtaining an H (or L) notation on the I-94 card at the port of entry. In these circumstances, the H (or L) status will be reinstated, giving one the benefit of continuing in that status for a length of time even if the I-485 ultimately is denied. Thus, when one wishes to maintain H1B (or L-1) status, which is often the case, this still may be accomplished, even if AP is used for entry at some stage in the process. This is particularly straightforward for individuals who have H1B (or L-1) status that will need to be extended shortly after their reentry into the U.S. The H (or L) extension, if approved, will put them back in H (or L) status, even if they last entered on AP. At the Murthy Law Firm, we also see many situations in which one uses AP for emergency travel or shorter trips, but then seeks the H (or L) visa on a later trip, when time allows for a visa application at the consulate.
hot Hd Wallpaper 1280x800
vikram2101
08-22 01:50 PM
Here's an anecdote -
This was back in the late 80s, when I was growing up - in Bangalore.
India had just lost the Finals of a well fought [field] hockey match to Pakistan. We were all very disappointed by the loss, but it saddened me further to see a victory procession with waving Pakistani flags in the Muslim parts of the City.
Ofcourse, India is a secular country and more so the United States.. and you can cheer whoever you please..
But, If you chose to become a US Citizen, and US were in a battle with your country of Origin (let's narrow it down to Sports, to keep it less complicated), which country would you side? If I chose to side with my country of origin, it would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it ?
This was back in the late 80s, when I was growing up - in Bangalore.
India had just lost the Finals of a well fought [field] hockey match to Pakistan. We were all very disappointed by the loss, but it saddened me further to see a victory procession with waving Pakistani flags in the Muslim parts of the City.
Ofcourse, India is a secular country and more so the United States.. and you can cheer whoever you please..
But, If you chose to become a US Citizen, and US were in a battle with your country of Origin (let's narrow it down to Sports, to keep it less complicated), which country would you side? If I chose to side with my country of origin, it would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it ?
more...
house Olivia Wilde - 1280 x 800
jkays94
06-07 07:08 PM
When employees post for job, they might say �need a citizen or gc holder�. But never say we only need a H1-B holder. So when we have respected and followed the rules of this country immigration becomes a right as logic life suggested.
My 2 cents�
These types of employment advertisements are discriminatory and are thus illegal unless it is work that requires security clearance. I am surprised that the Department of Justice is going after employers (http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/doj_investigation.html) who may have advertised jobs for non citizens while not going after the numerous advertisements that discriminate against non US citizens. I am aware of atleast one high profile company that engages in this type of activity in its advertisements (however one needs to apply and be rejected in order to file a complaint). The double standard is indeed disturbing :
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.html
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") investigates the following types of discriminatory conduct under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. � 1324b:
Citizenship or immigration status discrimination with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee by employers with four or more employees. Employers may not treat individuals differently because they are, or are not, U.S. citizens or work authorized immigrants. U.S. citizens, many permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination.
My 2 cents�
These types of employment advertisements are discriminatory and are thus illegal unless it is work that requires security clearance. I am surprised that the Department of Justice is going after employers (http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/doj_investigation.html) who may have advertised jobs for non citizens while not going after the numerous advertisements that discriminate against non US citizens. I am aware of atleast one high profile company that engages in this type of activity in its advertisements (however one needs to apply and be rejected in order to file a complaint). The double standard is indeed disturbing :
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.html
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") investigates the following types of discriminatory conduct under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. � 1324b:
Citizenship or immigration status discrimination with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee by employers with four or more employees. Employers may not treat individuals differently because they are, or are not, U.S. citizens or work authorized immigrants. U.S. citizens, many permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination.
tattoo Windows 7 Wallpaper 1280x800
Jaime
12-07 03:51 PM
bump
more...
pictures Kitty Wallpaper - 1280x800
desi3933
08-19 04:26 PM
Right on!
Well there are several added advantages like you mentioned.
What kind of business you do? If you don't mind asking.
Are you making money? (bottom line hehe)
>> Are you making money? (bottom line hehe)
How does that bother you? Thanks for the good laugh, BTW. :D
Well there are several added advantages like you mentioned.
What kind of business you do? If you don't mind asking.
Are you making money? (bottom line hehe)
>> Are you making money? (bottom line hehe)
How does that bother you? Thanks for the good laugh, BTW. :D
dresses I Love Life (1280x800)
gcisadawg
04-09 01:51 PM
We received the RFE for the Td vaccine that was missed somehow by Concentra. But since she is nursing now, we were able to get a blanket Waiver for her.
Sameet,
I know it is a weird question. But I'd still go ahead and ask it.
What documents that USCIS expects for a scenario like this?
My situation: My wife still hasn't weaned off nursing completely.
My child is 1 year 3 months old. My wife got an RFE for TB test.
Plus she is in India currently.
Would sending the birth certificate of child be enough to prove the existence of 1 yr 3 month old child? OR would USCIS requires doctors's input also? OR do they require anything else to prove baby is still being nursed.?
Thansk for your response,
GCisaDawg
Sameet,
I know it is a weird question. But I'd still go ahead and ask it.
What documents that USCIS expects for a scenario like this?
My situation: My wife still hasn't weaned off nursing completely.
My child is 1 year 3 months old. My wife got an RFE for TB test.
Plus she is in India currently.
Would sending the birth certificate of child be enough to prove the existence of 1 yr 3 month old child? OR would USCIS requires doctors's input also? OR do they require anything else to prove baby is still being nursed.?
Thansk for your response,
GCisaDawg
more...
makeup Alizee Wallpaper 1280 x 800 by
coolduggar
08-14 05:36 PM
Yes, that is right, I said �plight of EB2-India�.
I am a passive observer of these forums. But some of the ridiculous notions floating around here have motivated me to vent. First and foremost, the law as written is highly favorable to people in EB3 categories, even from India. Here is how...
Take my example (and there are thousands like myself)....came to the US 8 years ago, spent 5 years working day and night to earn a PhD on a low (barely sustainable) stipend, got FIRST job saw decent money for the first time 6 years after I came.
Now, compare this to a person working an EB3-job for the last 8 years. Not only does this person do a real job that hopefully provides a respectable income but this person also has the option of moving to EB2 after 5 years of experience. So, at the end of the day in 2008; this person comes out ahead of me in terms of money, in terms of priority date (if ported) and most likely in terms of GC.
There are complaints all over the forum which have the stink of pretentiousness such as �oh..i am a poor EB3 waiting for n number of years� etc etc. What you guys seem to forget is that YOU are NOT an EB3, it is your JOB that is EB3. You have all the opportunities that were/are available to a person who sweated it out in the university system here to gain more qualifications and get an EB2 job. You CHOSE not to. The general discussion seems to center around cribbing about the US immigration system (Immigration by the way is a privilege defined by laws, not a birthright) and then blaming the EB2 crowd when they finally see the system implement the law as intended in the first place (horizontal spillover rules).
All these posts that refer to �my career is over because my gc is delayed� are nothing but a pathetic excuse. Law of supply and demand....if you have a skillset that is valuable, you will be fine with or without GC anywhere in the world. It takes a bunch of documents to remain here legally, all you need is a passport to go back if the system here seems so bad.
For all the attacks that are bound to happen, here is the fodder.....this is probably my first and last post, I haven�t contributed a dime to IV, will work here as long as I like it and if not, India is a great country and provides enough opportunities for any skillset !!
Stupid Post
I am a passive observer of these forums. But some of the ridiculous notions floating around here have motivated me to vent. First and foremost, the law as written is highly favorable to people in EB3 categories, even from India. Here is how...
Take my example (and there are thousands like myself)....came to the US 8 years ago, spent 5 years working day and night to earn a PhD on a low (barely sustainable) stipend, got FIRST job saw decent money for the first time 6 years after I came.
Now, compare this to a person working an EB3-job for the last 8 years. Not only does this person do a real job that hopefully provides a respectable income but this person also has the option of moving to EB2 after 5 years of experience. So, at the end of the day in 2008; this person comes out ahead of me in terms of money, in terms of priority date (if ported) and most likely in terms of GC.
There are complaints all over the forum which have the stink of pretentiousness such as �oh..i am a poor EB3 waiting for n number of years� etc etc. What you guys seem to forget is that YOU are NOT an EB3, it is your JOB that is EB3. You have all the opportunities that were/are available to a person who sweated it out in the university system here to gain more qualifications and get an EB2 job. You CHOSE not to. The general discussion seems to center around cribbing about the US immigration system (Immigration by the way is a privilege defined by laws, not a birthright) and then blaming the EB2 crowd when they finally see the system implement the law as intended in the first place (horizontal spillover rules).
All these posts that refer to �my career is over because my gc is delayed� are nothing but a pathetic excuse. Law of supply and demand....if you have a skillset that is valuable, you will be fine with or without GC anywhere in the world. It takes a bunch of documents to remain here legally, all you need is a passport to go back if the system here seems so bad.
For all the attacks that are bound to happen, here is the fodder.....this is probably my first and last post, I haven�t contributed a dime to IV, will work here as long as I like it and if not, India is a great country and provides enough opportunities for any skillset !!
Stupid Post
girlfriend wallpaper 1280x800 1024x6401
rdehar
09-15 08:41 PM
..
hairstyles Wallpapers Set 1280x800
belmontboy
04-20 02:49 PM
so you are agreeing with all the bs which getgreensoon1 is saying
man you guys need to grow up
ignore :D
man you guys need to grow up
ignore :D
belmontboy
04-18 06:03 PM
The true way is -- 1) Recapture, 2) Exclude dependents from Visa Number
Also exluding STEM grads from quota.
Also exluding STEM grads from quota.
jimytomy
04-19 10:37 AM
Jimmy,
Did you change employer when you ported from eb3 to eb2, or stayed with the same employer?
- 2004 filed for Labor and started EB3 process.
- Company got acquired in later years . Filed new I140 ( I think it is called successor-in-interest)
- Recently started fresh EB2 process for interfiling of EB3 to EB2 . GC approved.
Thanks,
Jimytomy
Did you change employer when you ported from eb3 to eb2, or stayed with the same employer?
- 2004 filed for Labor and started EB3 process.
- Company got acquired in later years . Filed new I140 ( I think it is called successor-in-interest)
- Recently started fresh EB2 process for interfiling of EB3 to EB2 . GC approved.
Thanks,
Jimytomy
No comments:
Post a Comment