Widget
04-18 03:28 PM
Yesterday, there was a problem with the uscis web site. I tried to use the web site several times. Did you try to use the web site yesterday? or before?
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
wallpaper i love you baby
amit79
04-10 05:00 PM
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a preliminary number of nearly 163,000 H-1B petitions received during the filing period ending on April 7, 2008. More than 31,200 of those petitions were for the advanced degree category.
I read this as saying this....
The 163k number includes the advance degree number. So it is 132K for general and 31k for advance
Ys, total petitions received are 163,000
I read this as saying this....
The 163k number includes the advance degree number. So it is 132K for general and 31k for advance
Ys, total petitions received are 163,000
shsk
07-16 11:36 PM
Hi,
My attorney is requesting that I need to submit Tax return for filing AOS.
I had sent W2 forms
Is tax return separate from W2 , I am confused..:confused:
Pls help
My attorney is requesting that I need to submit Tax return for filing AOS.
I had sent W2 forms
Is tax return separate from W2 , I am confused..:confused:
Pls help
2011 Love You Baby Slot Image
srisra
02-01 09:19 AM
Congrats...
more...
BMS1
08-21 06:37 PM
are you in EB2?
Yes I am.
Yes I am.
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
lkapildev
11-26 10:44 PM
I got my AP status online as Document Mailed to Applicant:
What does it mean?
Has any one got the AP after Document mailed to application status?
What does it mean?
Has any one got the AP after Document mailed to application status?
2010 Let Me Love You Baby by Buddy
masterji
10-14 05:40 PM
I thought AP must ONLY be used for emergency travel purposes, not for vacations, brother's marriage etc. Some IV members shared their experiences at the POE, the IO may ask why you left US, what was the emergency? Please correct me if I am wrong. Can AP be used for casual travel also? Thanks.
Not a lawyer. This is not a legal advice.
Not a lawyer. This is not a legal advice.
more...
neoklaus
11-14 02:19 PM
As per my family experience: for my husband and daughter they issued EADs without
FP 3 weeks befor FP app-t, but mine EAD was ordered, as I've been informed by e-mail,
in a 4 days after FP was done.
So, even if Biometricals are not mandatory for EAD, but EAD Card has place for FP on it,
in some cases they(USCIS) may pretend that there are a requirements( depends from officer)
FP 3 weeks befor FP app-t, but mine EAD was ordered, as I've been informed by e-mail,
in a 4 days after FP was done.
So, even if Biometricals are not mandatory for EAD, but EAD Card has place for FP on it,
in some cases they(USCIS) may pretend that there are a requirements( depends from officer)
hair i love you baby
freakin_gc
01-31 02:15 PM
Thanks for your feedback..won't you think column 15 in lc won't help? it mentioned as 'Will accept any suitable combination of Education , training or expeirence in lieu of stated requirements'. I also submitted an educational evaluation...
Column 15
Travel and/or relocation required
*compluter Applications, Computer Information Systems, Electrical, Mechanical, Mathematcis, Physics or its foriegn Education Equivalent. Will accept any suitable combination of Education , training or expeirence in lieu of stated requirements.
There is a high possibility that you will get an RFE and you will need to reply for the RFE.
Service centers does not consider three year degree course from India as degree equivalent from here. They want minimum four year degree. This may upset you. You may need to talk with your Attorney and look for an alternative to stay in US.
Column 15
Travel and/or relocation required
*compluter Applications, Computer Information Systems, Electrical, Mechanical, Mathematcis, Physics or its foriegn Education Equivalent. Will accept any suitable combination of Education , training or expeirence in lieu of stated requirements.
There is a high possibility that you will get an RFE and you will need to reply for the RFE.
Service centers does not consider three year degree course from India as degree equivalent from here. They want minimum four year degree. This may upset you. You may need to talk with your Attorney and look for an alternative to stay in US.
more...
samsanju.corp
01-08 02:10 AM
Interview date 9th dec 2009
Submitted all documents 10th dec 2009 as mentioned below:-
1) Petitioner's Federal Income Tax returns
2) Petitioner's state unemployment wage reports for last 4 quarters.
3) Letter from end client in US on letterhead indicating your services are expected.
4) List of petitioner's employees at your job site including names, titles, salaries, and immigration status.
5) Copy of contract between petitioner and contracting company with detailed job itinerary.
Till date I together with my employer have written 6 emails but there is no response.
I personally visited mumbai Consulate information center but they did't ave me any answer.
Can anyone please tell me how long this whole process will take?
Is there any chance that such case goes into endless loop?
My house and all belongings are in U.S. and I am clueless as what to do
Submitted all documents 10th dec 2009 as mentioned below:-
1) Petitioner's Federal Income Tax returns
2) Petitioner's state unemployment wage reports for last 4 quarters.
3) Letter from end client in US on letterhead indicating your services are expected.
4) List of petitioner's employees at your job site including names, titles, salaries, and immigration status.
5) Copy of contract between petitioner and contracting company with detailed job itinerary.
Till date I together with my employer have written 6 emails but there is no response.
I personally visited mumbai Consulate information center but they did't ave me any answer.
Can anyone please tell me how long this whole process will take?
Is there any chance that such case goes into endless loop?
My house and all belongings are in U.S. and I am clueless as what to do
hot Name: Love you baby
santb1975
02-14 12:47 PM
We need help
more...
house I+love+you+aby+girl
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
tattoo i love you baby. i love you
crazyghoda
06-11 10:06 AM
Now that was some freudian slip :D. Thanks for the early morning humor.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office
USCIS tops any other US pubic office
more...
pictures i love you baby forever
ineedhelp
07-18 12:07 PM
Hi Ram,
Thanks for your reply. But i heard like the policies which are signed india are valid in USA becoz of the mutual countries agreement. I did actually visit an attorney and got to know from her that it is probably something that wipro might not take (action against me) but she did paused and told me that USA will of course will honor any policies that were signed in India because of bilateral agreement.
Regards,
ineedhelp
Thanks for your reply. But i heard like the policies which are signed india are valid in USA becoz of the mutual countries agreement. I did actually visit an attorney and got to know from her that it is probably something that wipro might not take (action against me) but she did paused and told me that USA will of course will honor any policies that were signed in India because of bilateral agreement.
Regards,
ineedhelp
dresses I love you baby
Appu
04-06 10:27 PM
There is no serious effort by the republicans. They are fractured, divided, into groups. They have no motivation to get this comprehensive bill passed. I have been observing the tactics and attitudes of these republican senators and democratic senators. I am more shocked by the game of one-upmanship on the part of Frist, Kyl, Cornyn, Craig. I don't see rhyme or reason in their sppeches. The bill has no life for the next 3 weeks.
Well said. This whole thing is stalling simply because of Frist's presidential ambitions and Kyl's relection bid. Frist wants to distance himself from Bush and McCain - both guys supporting guest worker programs and legalization of the undocumented workers. He wants to show he is "strong on security" by pushing through a border security only bill. He is using Kyl and others to torpedo the SJC bill either on the senate floor or in the conference. Bush is too powerless to intervene.
We are probably screwed unless Frist agrees to send a moderate group - like the SJC - to the conference instead of Kyl, Cornyn, Sessions or people like that.
My $0.02.
Well said. This whole thing is stalling simply because of Frist's presidential ambitions and Kyl's relection bid. Frist wants to distance himself from Bush and McCain - both guys supporting guest worker programs and legalization of the undocumented workers. He wants to show he is "strong on security" by pushing through a border security only bill. He is using Kyl and others to torpedo the SJC bill either on the senate floor or in the conference. Bush is too powerless to intervene.
We are probably screwed unless Frist agrees to send a moderate group - like the SJC - to the conference instead of Kyl, Cornyn, Sessions or people like that.
My $0.02.
more...
makeup I Love You baby
nkd970
10-06 09:56 PM
Are there any new updates? My case was filed in Jun 07, responded to the query in NOV 07, and it is still pending?
What the &*^% is going on? !!@$%ing DOL.
:mad:
Mine was filed by Fragomen in June and responded to audit in November as well. If your case was filed by Fragomen you have no option but the wait. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am in exactly the same situation.
What the &*^% is going on? !!@$%ing DOL.
:mad:
Mine was filed by Fragomen in June and responded to audit in November as well. If your case was filed by Fragomen you have no option but the wait. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am in exactly the same situation.
girlfriend i love you baby. i love you
sobers
07-04 12:06 PM
"It's like living in a holding pattern continuously," said Swati Srivastava, 28, a member of Immigration Voice, a new grass-roots organization of skilled foreign workers pushing for immigration reform. The Internet-based group formed late last year and has about 5,000 members scattered around the country.
"We work in [the] U.S. legally in high-skilled jobs, but we still get penalized for playing by the rules," Immigration Voice co-founder Aman Kapoor said in an e-mail. "Since no one was working on our issues, we decided to organize."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-skilledvisa3jul03,1,1670817.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1
"We work in [the] U.S. legally in high-skilled jobs, but we still get penalized for playing by the rules," Immigration Voice co-founder Aman Kapoor said in an e-mail. "Since no one was working on our issues, we decided to organize."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-skilledvisa3jul03,1,1670817.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1
hairstyles tell you baby i love you
mhathi
04-15 04:35 PM
Heartiest Congratulations!
walking_dude
11-26 11:03 AM
Thanks - amits, iamgsprabhu, kartikiran, MunnaBhai, Rajeev, srinivas_o, SubaM99 - for your pledge of support. I also request you guys to post the contribution you plan to make ( except amits who has pleadge a contribution of $100 through PM to me).
Others, please come forward to pledge your support. Please post the amount of monetary contribution you intend to make for the rally, and then vote 'Yes' on the poll.
Others, please come forward to pledge your support. Please post the amount of monetary contribution you intend to make for the rally, and then vote 'Yes' on the poll.
BhanuPriya
01-12 03:44 PM
Received I140 Approved Documents using FOI Act.
I use to suffer from my rough Employer (Desi), who never used to give me any of my Immigration Documents including Approved H1 dosument. I asked him to give atleast my H1 document so that I can go for Visa Stamping. He is such a bloody rough and he wants me to stay with him as bonded labor. I used to beg my Salary every month and never use to get my payment what I need to receive.
Meanwhile, I heard about FOI (Freedom of Information Act) and applied for it in 7 months back for the Approved I140 Documents. I applied for it and forget. To my surprise I received all the I140 related Approved documents yesterday evening. I have already changed that rough Employer without Approved H1 Notice. Now, I am very happy person working for a nice and decent Employer.
Thanks to all supporters/friends who work in these forums providing Information for the benefit of other people.
I use to suffer from my rough Employer (Desi), who never used to give me any of my Immigration Documents including Approved H1 dosument. I asked him to give atleast my H1 document so that I can go for Visa Stamping. He is such a bloody rough and he wants me to stay with him as bonded labor. I used to beg my Salary every month and never use to get my payment what I need to receive.
Meanwhile, I heard about FOI (Freedom of Information Act) and applied for it in 7 months back for the Approved I140 Documents. I applied for it and forget. To my surprise I received all the I140 related Approved documents yesterday evening. I have already changed that rough Employer without Approved H1 Notice. Now, I am very happy person working for a nice and decent Employer.
Thanks to all supporters/friends who work in these forums providing Information for the benefit of other people.
No comments:
Post a Comment