amitjoey
01-14 12:24 PM
Let us all promise ourselves that we will not get personal with each other. No abusive, foul language.
We can disagree with each other but we have to watch our tone and not engage in personal attacks.
We can disagree with each other but we have to watch our tone and not engage in personal attacks.
wallpaper David Beckham Tattoo Artist
Nikith77
06-12 06:36 PM
To be honest, I do agree that the US needs qualified people with skillsets. The real question is "Are the people from the desi consulting companies the real qualified lot ? " Just to get my background details out of the way. I am a new member, from India ofcourse, and I have recently applied for my citizenship. Now with this huge deluge of immigrants, especially from the desi consulting companies, I feel that my quality of life is getting adversely impacted. Do not rush to conclusions that I am anti Indian or anti immigrant. 12 years back when I first got my H1 visa, the requirements to qualify were strict. Staffing companies to a decent extent followed rules and tried to get the best and the brightest. Once the dot com boom started, people from all walks of life entered IT. This was true of not just the Indians but also of people in the US. Soon after the bust, the value proposition from these staffing companies was simply low cost. This is not to blame the staffing companies. They behaved in an economically rational way.
Consider this scenario. If you run a consulting company, wouldn't you try to maximize your profits by staffing people in projects at the least cost ? This is econmically rational. You wouldn't worry much about the quality of the deliverables and all you would care is to dump as many bodies as possible at the client site or offshore and get the maximum bang for the buck.
In this scenario, how is it feasible to expect immigrational justice when the bodies themselves dont provide exceptional talent and skills but simply offer low cost ? Now you would be tempted to bring in the analogous case of illegal low skilled immigrants. Remember they are just that - low skilled workers. They dont "steal" the jobs of high skilled workers. But this dumping of IT workforce has completely brought down the standard of living of the IT workers here. To be honest, those who get green cards today would feel the same way five years from now when the next wave of so called "skilled IT immigrants" offer even lower wages and destroy the quality of life.
In summary, this retrogression is good in a way. The truly best and the brightest would still be employed until their turn for adjournment comes in. Only the weak are currently scared of the delays. I went through the same torrid GC phase after the tech meltdown in 2001. I was not worried of my job then but many people whom I knew got clobbered and were forced to leave. This is the darwinian flush and it will take its toll. Trust me this the bitter truth. If you people still consider that all the people on H1/L1 are part of the best and the brightest, they are WRONG. Only a small % (probably 20%) are the true best and the brightest and a good 50% will be flushed out. Sorry to say this and hey give me the red dots.
I think you are over confi....... but best of luck to you.
Consider this scenario. If you run a consulting company, wouldn't you try to maximize your profits by staffing people in projects at the least cost ? This is econmically rational. You wouldn't worry much about the quality of the deliverables and all you would care is to dump as many bodies as possible at the client site or offshore and get the maximum bang for the buck.
In this scenario, how is it feasible to expect immigrational justice when the bodies themselves dont provide exceptional talent and skills but simply offer low cost ? Now you would be tempted to bring in the analogous case of illegal low skilled immigrants. Remember they are just that - low skilled workers. They dont "steal" the jobs of high skilled workers. But this dumping of IT workforce has completely brought down the standard of living of the IT workers here. To be honest, those who get green cards today would feel the same way five years from now when the next wave of so called "skilled IT immigrants" offer even lower wages and destroy the quality of life.
In summary, this retrogression is good in a way. The truly best and the brightest would still be employed until their turn for adjournment comes in. Only the weak are currently scared of the delays. I went through the same torrid GC phase after the tech meltdown in 2001. I was not worried of my job then but many people whom I knew got clobbered and were forced to leave. This is the darwinian flush and it will take its toll. Trust me this the bitter truth. If you people still consider that all the people on H1/L1 are part of the best and the brightest, they are WRONG. Only a small % (probably 20%) are the true best and the brightest and a good 50% will be flushed out. Sorry to say this and hey give me the red dots.
I think you are over confi....... but best of luck to you.
snthampi
07-30 06:53 PM
Ohh the moral police (shiv sena etc) are out, chill out dude what is decent to you is not necessarily indecent to another man and and vice versa. You enjoy the same thing if Salman Khan does it in his movie, right? Don't be a Bore for real get my drift? Or were you the Amway gut I met?
Ignore that idiot man. There are some morons who think what they believe is right.
Ignore that idiot man. There are some morons who think what they believe is right.
2011 Tattoo Ideas » David
PlainSpeak
01-14 12:24 PM
If you don't believe what IV does, why are you wasting your time here....I see that you are totally jobless....
why are you wasting your time here....
I DO believe in what IV does. Why do you think i am here trying to change the mentality of the abusive corase minded people out here. So you see my friend time here is not wasted
I see that you are totally jobless....
Ahh my friend should not job does not concern you. Instead of worrying about my job what you should be worrying about is the dsiscussion and what are your opinions and remember i am only looking for commnets on teh issue at hand. Anything else is not worth anything but ia m sure you are going to ignore the advise. Seriously please clean up your mind
why are you wasting your time here....
I DO believe in what IV does. Why do you think i am here trying to change the mentality of the abusive corase minded people out here. So you see my friend time here is not wasted
I see that you are totally jobless....
Ahh my friend should not job does not concern you. Instead of worrying about my job what you should be worrying about is the dsiscussion and what are your opinions and remember i am only looking for commnets on teh issue at hand. Anything else is not worth anything but ia m sure you are going to ignore the advise. Seriously please clean up your mind
more...
immique
07-16 11:20 PM
there are still atleast 20K visas left this year and atleast 85-90% of those will go to EB2 India. this should clear up a significant majority of the EB2 pending prior to 06/2006. As I mentioned before the numbers will be unavailable towards the end of September as all the visas are used up, but by this time most of the EB2 hat are current now will get their visas. the dates may go back slightly in October- probably to mid 2004 like you said, but it will not stay there for long. with all the Spill over, the dates will start moving rapidly in Nov/dec of this year itself and EB2 India will be current by this time next year. I agree wth your assertion that legislative fix is needed to increase the EB numbers and resolve the backlogs
According to there are 15 pages X 50 Eb-2 India I-485 is pending with priority date before 6/1/2006. If we assume 5% of Eb-2 India is registered with , total visas to be issued in EB-2 for India would be 19000 just upto June 1, 2006. Between June 1, 2006 to July 2007 this number simply more than double. Probably 50% of this 19000 Eb-2's may be processed upto September 30, 2008 leaving another 9500 visas compete for next year. Again 60% of Eb-2 485 is pending with NSC and 40% is pending with TSC. Therefore TSC people's share of I-485 will be more till September compared to NSC Eb-2 India.
My prediction is EB-2 India will start in October 2008 with April 2004 and in April 2009 it can go back to June 2006.
Any Legislative relief from congress will make the situation lot better.
According to there are 15 pages X 50 Eb-2 India I-485 is pending with priority date before 6/1/2006. If we assume 5% of Eb-2 India is registered with , total visas to be issued in EB-2 for India would be 19000 just upto June 1, 2006. Between June 1, 2006 to July 2007 this number simply more than double. Probably 50% of this 19000 Eb-2's may be processed upto September 30, 2008 leaving another 9500 visas compete for next year. Again 60% of Eb-2 485 is pending with NSC and 40% is pending with TSC. Therefore TSC people's share of I-485 will be more till September compared to NSC Eb-2 India.
My prediction is EB-2 India will start in October 2008 with April 2004 and in April 2009 it can go back to June 2006.
Any Legislative relief from congress will make the situation lot better.
saps
10-29 01:50 PM
I don't think waiting for GC will be such a big problem if we can get relief from Government related to flexibility in job change (just like after getting GC), option to opt for FT school, etc... We can request immediate relief to GC community that if their I-485 is pending for more than 2 years (say), they should be granted a temp. intermediate status which should allow them to change jobs which are not neccessarily similar or on same payscale, flexibility to opt as FT student if they want to..... If we get this flexibility, I don't think waiting for GC is going to hurt so much. We have tried so much to get the GC quota increased but nothing has worked. May be we should focus on small things like this first. Just thinking aloud.
more...
newtoearth
05-02 03:13 PM
....
2010 Image of Beckham Tattoo Angel
matreen
02-13 12:53 AM
I think the entire community should align behind Administrative reforms with a laser-focus. This initiative is a digression.
IV has had it's own share of success with it's approach. No other methods have succeeded so far .
Also, from my little IV volunteering experience I can vouch that our community has very high inertia and is difficult to organize. people are afraid to send letters to president...good luck in getting them to sue USCIS.
community does not have the bandwidth to take multiple initiatives.
I see no wisdom in doing this. USCIS/DOS can screw us worse , if they wish to . This is not being timid but being pragmatic...anyway the bravado talk also needs to be followed up by multiple clear paths to victory.
How long do you think we are going to live like this, without hope. CIS already screwing us...what else to afriad......I disagree with CHMUR...
IV has had it's own share of success with it's approach. No other methods have succeeded so far .
Also, from my little IV volunteering experience I can vouch that our community has very high inertia and is difficult to organize. people are afraid to send letters to president...good luck in getting them to sue USCIS.
community does not have the bandwidth to take multiple initiatives.
I see no wisdom in doing this. USCIS/DOS can screw us worse , if they wish to . This is not being timid but being pragmatic...anyway the bravado talk also needs to be followed up by multiple clear paths to victory.
How long do you think we are going to live like this, without hope. CIS already screwing us...what else to afriad......I disagree with CHMUR...
more...
JazzByTheBay
12-13 04:34 PM
If someone from country X, Y, or Z comes in on that same quota, that's OK - but we can't accept folks from countries A, B and C??
jazz
Let's assume that it can not be fought within US Constitutional framework then do we have a choice to bring this to international court level? Can US prove that keeping per country immigration quota for EB categories is not a discrimination but a policy to protect its citizens or per say to protect its industry/economy?
jazz
Let's assume that it can not be fought within US Constitutional framework then do we have a choice to bring this to international court level? Can US prove that keeping per country immigration quota for EB categories is not a discrimination but a policy to protect its citizens or per say to protect its industry/economy?
hair Tyson Beckford sleeve tattoos
HumHongeKamiyab
09-29 11:42 AM
Hi there,
I also used automatic revalidation about 3 months back.. Dont worry, The immigration officer there knows all the rules. FYI, I went by car from rainbow bridge. While comming back officer just asked me normal questions such as "Where are you from ? " and "When are you flying back to Houston ?". Thats about it..
--HumHongeKamiyab
I also used automatic revalidation about 3 months back.. Dont worry, The immigration officer there knows all the rules. FYI, I went by car from rainbow bridge. While comming back officer just asked me normal questions such as "Where are you from ? " and "When are you flying back to Houston ?". Thats about it..
--HumHongeKamiyab
more...
snathan
01-21 06:27 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
Everyone knows what the impact would be...no one coming up with the solutions or ready to fight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
Everyone knows what the impact would be...no one coming up with the solutions or ready to fight.
hot Sleeve Tattoo design
jkays94
05-25 12:08 PM
I heard that if you apply on your own and move out of US, it becomes very difficult to let the Can immigration authority about your current location and keep track of all the correspondence with them. But, the agency/lawyer does this thing very efficiantly. Any opinion on this ?
You can update your address online through the e-client tool. The only issue might be that your case may be transferred to a consulate location closer to you.
http://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/ECAS.jsp?language=english&page=ECAS.jsp
You can update your address online through the e-client tool. The only issue might be that your case may be transferred to a consulate location closer to you.
http://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/ECAS.jsp?language=english&page=ECAS.jsp
more...
house David Beckham Tattoo
BharatPremi
12-13 05:15 PM
Isn't there any Indian lawyer who is a member of IV and can give some direction to this discussion?
Yes, some law professional should really enlighten us for this deep waters.
Yes, some law professional should really enlighten us for this deep waters.
tattoo david beckham arm tattoo
samay
07-14 06:08 AM
[QUOTE=AllVNeedGcPc;259781]I am a software engineer (15-xxx series):
- my LC got approved with 17-xxx code (Mechanical Engineer) (BECs fault, our forms OK), in 2006
- applied for LC amendment and returned original LC to BEC, right then
- No word from BEC, waited for a year, assumed 140 lost and then applied 140 with 17-xxx code and a copy of returned LC, in April 2007
- Applied EAD and AP, on July 2nd 2007
- meanwhile (after 140 application) LC got amended with new 15-xxx code, in August 2007 (Just before BECs shutdown)
- 140 that was applied in April 2007 is still pending
- Atty says that we will send the amended LC once we get an RFE
Should we wait for an RFE or should we inform USCIS about the amended code?
In my opinion you should have filed a copy of amended LC with the USCIS when you received it.
- my LC got approved with 17-xxx code (Mechanical Engineer) (BECs fault, our forms OK), in 2006
- applied for LC amendment and returned original LC to BEC, right then
- No word from BEC, waited for a year, assumed 140 lost and then applied 140 with 17-xxx code and a copy of returned LC, in April 2007
- Applied EAD and AP, on July 2nd 2007
- meanwhile (after 140 application) LC got amended with new 15-xxx code, in August 2007 (Just before BECs shutdown)
- 140 that was applied in April 2007 is still pending
- Atty says that we will send the amended LC once we get an RFE
Should we wait for an RFE or should we inform USCIS about the amended code?
In my opinion you should have filed a copy of amended LC with the USCIS when you received it.
more...
pictures David Beckham (football)
soljabhai
12-14 05:34 PM
100$
dresses Filed under Girls Tattoo
g1FTP
06-16 03:27 PM
I hope that you are more qualified than I am and I am not going to waste your time or my time contesting it. However, you could be a little more humble. I would also like to point out that your high qualifications may be failing you in your critical and deductive reasoning. Refer to the highlighted portion of your quote. If I may reason on an analogous note, you are saying that the current IIT JEE examination lets in a few people who aren't qualified. So by making the examination more tougher, it has more chances of letting in unqualified people. Needless to say, I am stumped.
I am waiting in the line as well for GC or to be sent back home and personally, I want everyone to get their GC and don't agree with dilipcr. Kind of off-topic but I made this observation:
IMHO simsachu's reasoning is sound.
Your example is not the same as simsachu's. simsachu assumes there are way more "bad" fish compared to the good one's in the population. Hence you need to catch more fish to come across a "good" one.
You assume the opposite (there are very few bad fish) and hence come to the conclusion that catching more fish would net you more bad fish (but way more "good" fish as well) as well. But given your assumption, it is puzzling why you want to have lesser number of GC's (if indeed that is what you are advocating, I haven't read all the messages in the thread) when you assume there are way more "good" candidates than bad.
I am waiting in the line as well for GC or to be sent back home and personally, I want everyone to get their GC and don't agree with dilipcr. Kind of off-topic but I made this observation:
IMHO simsachu's reasoning is sound.
Your example is not the same as simsachu's. simsachu assumes there are way more "bad" fish compared to the good one's in the population. Hence you need to catch more fish to come across a "good" one.
You assume the opposite (there are very few bad fish) and hence come to the conclusion that catching more fish would net you more bad fish (but way more "good" fish as well) as well. But given your assumption, it is puzzling why you want to have lesser number of GC's (if indeed that is what you are advocating, I haven't read all the messages in the thread) when you assume there are way more "good" candidates than bad.
more...
makeup David Beckham Tattoo Arm
unitednations
02-13 09:07 PM
I am following this discussion and it is interesting. Here is what I get so far.
USCIS is not allotting excess visa number horizontally. Unused visas from Eb1 and EB2 are not going to over subscribed countries but to EB3 ROW. The "total" visas in the law can be read as total visa across all categories. If this is true then it is likely that untill EB3 ROW becomes current, India and China will only get 7%. But here is what I do not get.
1) From november 2005 bulletin, USCIS is saying that they are going to suspend AC21. Why did they decide to suspend ac21? Can they decide on their own when they are going to apply to AC21 and when they are not? Is AC21 not a law?
2) Why or how did USCIS allocate large number of visas to over subscribed countries India and China before? Like in the November bulletin, USCIS says india used up around 44000 visas. Were they allocating more visas by following AC21? If yes, then why did they decide to suspend AC21? If no, then how they allocated so many numbers?
I am trying to understand the how the USCIS decides to allocate visa numbers. And it is very complex.
No; it is not in their discretion to suspend anything.
Before concurrent filing came around (2002); it was pretty easy to calculate dates because the 140's had to be approved. from here they could get good estimates.
However; they weren't ready for concurrent filing and 140's sat for almost one to two years to get approved. It looks like at this time; the visa dates started to get screwed up. Essentially, ac21 law says at anytime there is more demand then supply of visas in any quarter then 7% limit will apply. If you think about this; when would a situation ever exist where there wouldn't be more then 35,000 applications in any quarter?
back in 2003 in one of thos aila liaision minutes; uscis had said that approving 485's for EB people wasn't a priority and they just sat there. Hardly any EB cases got approved back then.
In April 2005 there was over 35,000 EB approvals mainly due to ombudsmen slamming them for not approving the cases. It looks like when all these cases got approved; someone at uscis/dos realized there was a big problem in their handling of visa dates and that there were too many applicants for visas and established dates and then in October 2006 they went strictly by more demand then visas available in a quarter then no ac21 and retrogression.
That's why I say there are also many people walking around with 485's who perhaps shouldn't be; because dos/uscis didn't do it properly in the last few years.
Also, due to the long time it was taking to get labors approved in heavy immigrant states (california, texas, georiga, new jersey, new york, virigina) many people from ROW in these states weren't able to get labors approved. However, many enterprising companies decided they were going to open branch offices in fast processing states (maine, new hampshire, south dakota, wisconsin) and get the labors approved very fast. This is why there is people with 2004 priority dates in eb3 with 485's pending but people in the slow states couldn't file. Now; there is a big convergence of all of this together. We all just happen to have gotten caught in a unique period of time in immigration (245i's; labor backlogs; concurrent filing; expansion of h-1b's, etc.).
USCIS is not allotting excess visa number horizontally. Unused visas from Eb1 and EB2 are not going to over subscribed countries but to EB3 ROW. The "total" visas in the law can be read as total visa across all categories. If this is true then it is likely that untill EB3 ROW becomes current, India and China will only get 7%. But here is what I do not get.
1) From november 2005 bulletin, USCIS is saying that they are going to suspend AC21. Why did they decide to suspend ac21? Can they decide on their own when they are going to apply to AC21 and when they are not? Is AC21 not a law?
2) Why or how did USCIS allocate large number of visas to over subscribed countries India and China before? Like in the November bulletin, USCIS says india used up around 44000 visas. Were they allocating more visas by following AC21? If yes, then why did they decide to suspend AC21? If no, then how they allocated so many numbers?
I am trying to understand the how the USCIS decides to allocate visa numbers. And it is very complex.
No; it is not in their discretion to suspend anything.
Before concurrent filing came around (2002); it was pretty easy to calculate dates because the 140's had to be approved. from here they could get good estimates.
However; they weren't ready for concurrent filing and 140's sat for almost one to two years to get approved. It looks like at this time; the visa dates started to get screwed up. Essentially, ac21 law says at anytime there is more demand then supply of visas in any quarter then 7% limit will apply. If you think about this; when would a situation ever exist where there wouldn't be more then 35,000 applications in any quarter?
back in 2003 in one of thos aila liaision minutes; uscis had said that approving 485's for EB people wasn't a priority and they just sat there. Hardly any EB cases got approved back then.
In April 2005 there was over 35,000 EB approvals mainly due to ombudsmen slamming them for not approving the cases. It looks like when all these cases got approved; someone at uscis/dos realized there was a big problem in their handling of visa dates and that there were too many applicants for visas and established dates and then in October 2006 they went strictly by more demand then visas available in a quarter then no ac21 and retrogression.
That's why I say there are also many people walking around with 485's who perhaps shouldn't be; because dos/uscis didn't do it properly in the last few years.
Also, due to the long time it was taking to get labors approved in heavy immigrant states (california, texas, georiga, new jersey, new york, virigina) many people from ROW in these states weren't able to get labors approved. However, many enterprising companies decided they were going to open branch offices in fast processing states (maine, new hampshire, south dakota, wisconsin) and get the labors approved very fast. This is why there is people with 2004 priority dates in eb3 with 485's pending but people in the slow states couldn't file. Now; there is a big convergence of all of this together. We all just happen to have gotten caught in a unique period of time in immigration (245i's; labor backlogs; concurrent filing; expansion of h-1b's, etc.).
girlfriend tattoo Japanese Koi with Lotus
nk2006
10-09 02:49 PM
A GC cannot be filed directly from a TN or E3 status.
As mihird said, not much difference. I am a naturalized Canadian working in US for last 7 years (country of birth � India) � Canadian citizenship does not help much in I485 stage since you will fall under the quota of country of birth. One small advantage is consular processing � Canadians can apply for CP at Montreal which used to be faster. But with retrogession and improved AOS processing in USA makes this irrelevant.
Another general advantage is use of TN1 visa instead of H1B. You can actually start/continue green card processing while in TN1 visa status � it needs some careful planning but it can be done. Basically you cannot get/renew TN1 visa once I-485 is filed but until then you can continue on TN1 while your labor/140 is under process and while you are waiting for the dates to get current. But this aspect is generally misunderstood and many lawyers insist on transferring to H1B even before starting the labor process (which happened in my case leading to my present state where I am extending h1b beyond 6th/7th year). Basically with a good lawyer and flexible employer you can use TN1 as long as possible, so that you don�t get into 6th/7th year h1b tensions � this can be a slight advantage in some cases.
As mihird said, not much difference. I am a naturalized Canadian working in US for last 7 years (country of birth � India) � Canadian citizenship does not help much in I485 stage since you will fall under the quota of country of birth. One small advantage is consular processing � Canadians can apply for CP at Montreal which used to be faster. But with retrogession and improved AOS processing in USA makes this irrelevant.
Another general advantage is use of TN1 visa instead of H1B. You can actually start/continue green card processing while in TN1 visa status � it needs some careful planning but it can be done. Basically you cannot get/renew TN1 visa once I-485 is filed but until then you can continue on TN1 while your labor/140 is under process and while you are waiting for the dates to get current. But this aspect is generally misunderstood and many lawyers insist on transferring to H1B even before starting the labor process (which happened in my case leading to my present state where I am extending h1b beyond 6th/7th year). Basically with a good lawyer and flexible employer you can use TN1 as long as possible, so that you don�t get into 6th/7th year h1b tensions � this can be a slight advantage in some cases.
hairstyles tattoo Half Sleeve Tattoos
bitu72
10-03 06:20 PM
1. You said Original Transcripts( i think you meant notarized copies of my transcripts)
2. How did you guys get experience letter from current employer, probably by saying we are getting visa for our parent to come here... any other ideas???
3. There are certain requirement for pictures to be taken, is it possible to get from walgreens or walmart.
THERE IS ALSO A REQUEST FOR IDENTITY CARD AE THEY ASKING FOR SSN NUMBER IN THERE OR SOMETHING ELSE
2. How did you guys get experience letter from current employer, probably by saying we are getting visa for our parent to come here... any other ideas???
3. There are certain requirement for pictures to be taken, is it possible to get from walgreens or walmart.
THERE IS ALSO A REQUEST FOR IDENTITY CARD AE THEY ASKING FOR SSN NUMBER IN THERE OR SOMETHING ELSE
hiralal
05-02 07:10 AM
well that is because Israel is a developed (or better ) than India in many ways. one Indian politician had once told Pakistan ..we don't fight when people are killed ..we fight when our land is in danger ..apparently because there is no shortage of people.
I have some sympathy for tamils in SL but not the LTTE ..one of my tamil friends had told me that tamils are treated as second class in SL ..that being said ..the demand of LTTE for a separate state or country (or greater Eelam) is totally unjustified ...
once such a thing happens in SL ..it will then happen in India
but I agree ..civilians should not be targetted ..(as said in the next post) ..if they are bombing hospitals then it is very bad. as for India's reaction .. THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN U ELECT WEAK PRIME MINISTERS
I have some sympathy for tamils in SL but not the LTTE ..one of my tamil friends had told me that tamils are treated as second class in SL ..that being said ..the demand of LTTE for a separate state or country (or greater Eelam) is totally unjustified ...
once such a thing happens in SL ..it will then happen in India
but I agree ..civilians should not be targetted ..(as said in the next post) ..if they are bombing hospitals then it is very bad. as for India's reaction .. THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN U ELECT WEAK PRIME MINISTERS
samay
07-30 04:22 PM
Hi,
1) My I-485(EB2-India) application file has two I-140 receipts (both of these are EB2) one of these I-140 is approved and the other was denied and a Motion to Reopen has been filed for this. How will the two EB2 I-140s affect my I-485 application?
2) I got a RFE for my I-1485 on June 17th 2008, asking for a I-140 approval notice. As we do not have a physical approval (never received the approval, may be lost in mail) notice my current attorney responded to the I-485 RFE and included the first I-140 receipt notice and also a copy of the approval email received from USCIS. The attorney also included the details of the second I-140 i.e the Motion to Reopen (I-290B) notice. Is the approach a good one?
3) My attorney also requested to consider the approved I-140 for adjucating the I-485 for me and my wife since the approved I-140 was filed and approved before filing the I-1485 and also we were married before the I-485 was filed. Will USCIS consider this request?
4) Also, will USCIS have a copy of my I-140 approval notice and will they use that and consider my I-485 case?
5) Will a Infopass appointment help in anyways?
My PERM labor was approved in May 2006 and my priority date is current for August 2008. The I-485 RFE response was received by USCIS on July 16th 2008 and my I-485 processing has resumed. I was wondering if USCIS will consider my approved I-140 for processing my I-485. Also, any other suggestions you could give me would be appreciated.
I am a little confused - Were two separate I-140 applications filed for you. If not why was a motion to reopen filed by your attorney if you received an approval notice. I am wondering why your attorney did not just inform the USCIS that they issued two receipts for the same case. As far as I can tell right now you should wait for the processing of your case. On another note even though your priority date is current your service center might not be processing cases with your filing date.
1) My I-485(EB2-India) application file has two I-140 receipts (both of these are EB2) one of these I-140 is approved and the other was denied and a Motion to Reopen has been filed for this. How will the two EB2 I-140s affect my I-485 application?
2) I got a RFE for my I-1485 on June 17th 2008, asking for a I-140 approval notice. As we do not have a physical approval (never received the approval, may be lost in mail) notice my current attorney responded to the I-485 RFE and included the first I-140 receipt notice and also a copy of the approval email received from USCIS. The attorney also included the details of the second I-140 i.e the Motion to Reopen (I-290B) notice. Is the approach a good one?
3) My attorney also requested to consider the approved I-140 for adjucating the I-485 for me and my wife since the approved I-140 was filed and approved before filing the I-1485 and also we were married before the I-485 was filed. Will USCIS consider this request?
4) Also, will USCIS have a copy of my I-140 approval notice and will they use that and consider my I-485 case?
5) Will a Infopass appointment help in anyways?
My PERM labor was approved in May 2006 and my priority date is current for August 2008. The I-485 RFE response was received by USCIS on July 16th 2008 and my I-485 processing has resumed. I was wondering if USCIS will consider my approved I-140 for processing my I-485. Also, any other suggestions you could give me would be appreciated.
I am a little confused - Were two separate I-140 applications filed for you. If not why was a motion to reopen filed by your attorney if you received an approval notice. I am wondering why your attorney did not just inform the USCIS that they issued two receipts for the same case. As far as I can tell right now you should wait for the processing of your case. On another note even though your priority date is current your service center might not be processing cases with your filing date.