LCtank
07-14 01:46 PM
This link didn't work for me either.
Nobody knows much about when Skil bill will be debated. Webfaxes are a means to influence lawmakers to bring this to the floor of the house. Independent analaysis by a lawfirm based on collection of information from various sources indicates the chance that some business backed bill for high skilled immigrants will be passed this year. There is a 45% chance that it will get passed early next year. You can view details on this link.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
Nobody knows much about when Skil bill will be debated. Webfaxes are a means to influence lawmakers to bring this to the floor of the house. Independent analaysis by a lawfirm based on collection of information from various sources indicates the chance that some business backed bill for high skilled immigrants will be passed this year. There is a 45% chance that it will get passed early next year. You can view details on this link.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
fcres
12-10 02:40 PM
What matters is a permanenet job offer letter and duties should match the
labor.
Rajesh Alex
rajeshalex: Where does it say job duties should match? I was under the understanding that the occupational classification should be same/similar.
labor.
Rajesh Alex
rajeshalex: Where does it say job duties should match? I was under the understanding that the occupational classification should be same/similar.
dealsnet
04-15 05:18 PM
You are correct. He have no option. Find a job, go back and tell them to do process the H1B, and do consular interview and stamping and come clean. You may have difficulty in approving the petition, or the process may take several months.
What you did a big mistake to ditch a company and go to a sucker. You are not supposed to start with the new company till you get the RECEIPT NOTICE after file for H1B. THAT IS A MISTAKE AND YOU ARE DID ILLEGAL ACTIVITY/JOB FROM THAT POINT OF TIME.
You have no choice but leave US immediately, go for CP, declare your overstay in the DS156 form, come clean to the VO and hope they forgive it.
Good Luck!
What you did a big mistake to ditch a company and go to a sucker. You are not supposed to start with the new company till you get the RECEIPT NOTICE after file for H1B. THAT IS A MISTAKE AND YOU ARE DID ILLEGAL ACTIVITY/JOB FROM THAT POINT OF TIME.
You have no choice but leave US immediately, go for CP, declare your overstay in the DS156 form, come clean to the VO and hope they forgive it.
Good Luck!
srh1
10-30 11:19 AM
bluez25 ....thank you so much for your reply.
addsf345 looks like you have a chicken head.
you dont have the common sense to understand the thread might be useful for people like me who could'nt decide whether to jump to a new employer with in 6 months or not as it would trigger any problem during Naturalization.
Seeing your comments i see your jealous of others getting GC. Change your thinking as the question which i asked at some point or the other you will also have the same question then at that point you will look like a chicken.
addsf345 looks like you have a chicken head.
you dont have the common sense to understand the thread might be useful for people like me who could'nt decide whether to jump to a new employer with in 6 months or not as it would trigger any problem during Naturalization.
Seeing your comments i see your jealous of others getting GC. Change your thinking as the question which i asked at some point or the other you will also have the same question then at that point you will look like a chicken.
more...
vparam
05-14 08:04 PM
My PD will become current. I want to support IV, so contributing agaain.
today 100, 450 till date.
today 100, 450 till date.
gc_chahiye
06-08 12:06 AM
But the letter doesn't seem to address the direct behaviour of the companies in question. Seems like a bunch of broader level issues were tackled - while true, it doesn't address H1B abuse in any way. Wasn't that the point?
no. The point was that neither of these companies do H1B abuse (small bodyshoppers in the US do), and trying to mix up immigration related rhetoric with international business is not a good idea.
If the senators had an issue, there are standard channels with which these can be taken up (both at ministries as well as trade-group levels). Public letters from these senators to the CEOs of our companies were essentially a publicity stunt to win votes and not a constructive way to find out if there is a problem and how it can be fixed. So in the same vein the NASSCOM reply is a broad response with good subtle hints that mixing immigration with India's business interests is not a good idea.
no. The point was that neither of these companies do H1B abuse (small bodyshoppers in the US do), and trying to mix up immigration related rhetoric with international business is not a good idea.
If the senators had an issue, there are standard channels with which these can be taken up (both at ministries as well as trade-group levels). Public letters from these senators to the CEOs of our companies were essentially a publicity stunt to win votes and not a constructive way to find out if there is a problem and how it can be fixed. So in the same vein the NASSCOM reply is a broad response with good subtle hints that mixing immigration with India's business interests is not a good idea.
more...
geesee
07-20 05:21 PM
^^^^
nsveta
04-22 04:57 PM
Though your intention is to help OP, there are certain things that need to be observed especially in this climate where there is lot of backlash against legal immigrants. We have to ensure that we do not provide any ammu to anti's with our comments.
For an employer to sponsor a foreign worker on H1B,
First of all, there needs to be a skilled worker position open and available in US and
2nd that there are no "qualified" US citizens are available to fill that position.
OP's post goes against both these conditions, Forget about the rest such as bad economy, survival etc.. as per law, Employer has to pack the H1B home if the position is knocked off with a flight ticket and a reasonable relocation.
No offense to any one but just calling for more caution as we have seen increased number of posts like these.
Thanks every one for your inputs. I been swinging on tis for a while now and after seeing your inputs, I made up my mind not to pursue this.
I am surprised this company is still doing what its doing considering USCIS scrutiny these days. Good to know that we are not supposed to pay for H-1 as prospective employees. And I def dont want to lose my 700 or 800USD for lawer in case the CAP reaches its limit in the next few days.
Thanks again.
For an employer to sponsor a foreign worker on H1B,
First of all, there needs to be a skilled worker position open and available in US and
2nd that there are no "qualified" US citizens are available to fill that position.
OP's post goes against both these conditions, Forget about the rest such as bad economy, survival etc.. as per law, Employer has to pack the H1B home if the position is knocked off with a flight ticket and a reasonable relocation.
No offense to any one but just calling for more caution as we have seen increased number of posts like these.
Thanks every one for your inputs. I been swinging on tis for a while now and after seeing your inputs, I made up my mind not to pursue this.
I am surprised this company is still doing what its doing considering USCIS scrutiny these days. Good to know that we are not supposed to pay for H-1 as prospective employees. And I def dont want to lose my 700 or 800USD for lawer in case the CAP reaches its limit in the next few days.
Thanks again.
more...
ksrk
12-10 04:36 PM
Just EB1 through EB3 adds to 149579.
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
eb3retro
03-15 01:15 PM
Filing 485 during visa unavailability, should not be the concern in this bill. Why our people are worrying about filing AOS when visa number unavailable? Man, this should not be our concern at all. Our main concern should be reinstating the AC21 provision that allow the oversubscribed countries to use excess visas in each EB category. Specter removed very important provision that eliminate per country limit in EB visas for oversubscribed countries. This is a big blow to India, China. It will stop all the benefits from this bill.
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
this person is bringing some valid points to ponder. People please go through her posting and i agree with her regarding the numbers is still 10% only for india. we need to fight for removing the per country limit, or else, we may probably be in this retrogression mess for quite sometime.
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
this person is bringing some valid points to ponder. People please go through her posting and i agree with her regarding the numbers is still 10% only for india. we need to fight for removing the per country limit, or else, we may probably be in this retrogression mess for quite sometime.
more...
deeph
07-21 04:12 PM
IV should work closely with Senator Cornyn on this amendment. IV can contact him and talk about re-introducing the amendment and can coordinate w/ him in persuing other senators.
IV should directly bring up issue w/ Senator Hiliary Clinton. She is getting lot of contribution from Indian community. Her action do not match her words of supporting our cause.
IV should coordinate both and we can follow.
IV should directly bring up issue w/ Senator Hiliary Clinton. She is getting lot of contribution from Indian community. Her action do not match her words of supporting our cause.
IV should coordinate both and we can follow.
gc_wow
09-16 10:43 PM
This lou dog has done much damage to our community, firing him from CNN or removing his sponsers is not going to do much. He will go to another channel and life goes on. Get this guy on our side and make him tell our story. When the dog barks point it towards enemy.
more...
ngopikrishnan
07-12 09:47 PM
AP and EAD Renewal Paper filed at TSC - Self Filed
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD app for myself is still pending - LUD is still 6/11. I hope TSC approves the EAD as well soon.
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD app for myself is still pending - LUD is still 6/11. I hope TSC approves the EAD as well soon.
O'podu
07-13 01:37 PM
:D Just come over with suits, casuals, sneakers and boots in HAND.:confused:
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
more...
gchopes
08-04 04:04 PM
my2cents - Agreed and Understood. But what if you are not on H1/H4 and just on EAD/AP aka AOS status. In that case you cannot mail the second AP and return on that. You need to return on the first AP.
Not True
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
Not True
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
amitga
04-27 06:00 PM
Hagel Introduces Legislation to Deal with Illegal Immigrants Living in the U.S.
So, on the Illegal side we have:
Senate Bill: Hagel with The Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007
House Bill: Flake with the STRIVE
On the Legal and High-Tech side we have:
Senate Bill: Cornyn with SKIL Bill
House Bill: Shadegg with SKIL Bill
Senate Discussion: Last two weeks of May 2007.
Let the engines start.
Are they going to discuss all the bills in last week of May or just the Hagel Bill.
So, on the Illegal side we have:
Senate Bill: Hagel with The Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007
House Bill: Flake with the STRIVE
On the Legal and High-Tech side we have:
Senate Bill: Cornyn with SKIL Bill
House Bill: Shadegg with SKIL Bill
Senate Discussion: Last two weeks of May 2007.
Let the engines start.
Are they going to discuss all the bills in last week of May or just the Hagel Bill.
more...
looneytunezez
04-08 04:17 PM
Employment-based: At this time the amount of demand being received in the Employment First preference is extremely low compared with that of recent years. Absent an immediate and dramatic increase in demand, this category will remain “Current” for all countries. It also appears unlikely that a Second preference cut-off date will be imposed for any countries other than China and India, where demand is extremely high. Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
.gif "funny quotes on friends. funny")
coopheal
11-10 05:13 PM
All,
IV has put in significant effort in creating this survey to map the strength of our community.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
Answered the the survey.
IV has put in significant effort in creating this survey to map the strength of our community.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
Answered the the survey.
waitnwatch
08-30 12:36 AM
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
I think that applies to telephone conversations only though I may be wrong. Doesn't hurt to record conversation though - the most that will happen is that the lawyer will say that it is not admissible in a court of law.
I think that applies to telephone conversations only though I may be wrong. Doesn't hurt to record conversation though - the most that will happen is that the lawyer will say that it is not admissible in a court of law.
vicks_don
04-18 03:23 PM
i understand it now.
bskrishna
03-24 12:58 PM
Mark,
Hats offs on your responses in the radio show.......
Hats offs on your responses in the radio show.......
No comments:
Post a Comment