hope4gc
01-18 04:54 AM
My cousin took a offer from a employer in CA few months ago who did her H1 transfer but the condition mentioned in the agreement is that
In the event the employee voluntarily resigns or her employment is terminated for performance or cause prior to 4 years, employee agrees to reimburse the "Employer" for the full amount of legal, administrative and filing fees associated with the sponsorship of the employee's work visas as permitted by law.
The employer won't do premium processing so my cousin paid $1000 on her own but she had to travel outside the country to canada to get a new I-94. The employer's law firm filed the paper work with canada embassy in US to get a canadian visa.
Now my cousin got her GC through her hubby which her employer does not know. She is debating if she needs to inform her manager and company as they might ask her to sign any agreement or give back H1 fees.
The employment laws in CA are different so how can she move (if moves within 4 yrs) to another company without paying anything or a little fee to the employer. I told her that H1-B fees are not too high maybe around $4000.00 so the employer will have to spend lot of money on the lawyer's to go to court to suit her if she left say after 2 years of employment as she feels that the agreement is one sided considering the time line.
If it is a big company, the lawyer fees is not small, they charge about 15K for the whole process and if they add liquidation damages(marketing efforts), it might be bigger.
Talk to them if you have not started work, you might just have to pay the H1B fees
In the event the employee voluntarily resigns or her employment is terminated for performance or cause prior to 4 years, employee agrees to reimburse the "Employer" for the full amount of legal, administrative and filing fees associated with the sponsorship of the employee's work visas as permitted by law.
The employer won't do premium processing so my cousin paid $1000 on her own but she had to travel outside the country to canada to get a new I-94. The employer's law firm filed the paper work with canada embassy in US to get a canadian visa.
Now my cousin got her GC through her hubby which her employer does not know. She is debating if she needs to inform her manager and company as they might ask her to sign any agreement or give back H1 fees.
The employment laws in CA are different so how can she move (if moves within 4 yrs) to another company without paying anything or a little fee to the employer. I told her that H1-B fees are not too high maybe around $4000.00 so the employer will have to spend lot of money on the lawyer's to go to court to suit her if she left say after 2 years of employment as she feels that the agreement is one sided considering the time line.
If it is a big company, the lawyer fees is not small, they charge about 15K for the whole process and if they add liquidation damages(marketing efforts), it might be bigger.
Talk to them if you have not started work, you might just have to pay the H1B fees
wallpaper dresses Emma Watson for Vogue Italia emma watson vogue 2010.
skd
01-10 12:54 PM
66% of the people who voted know someone who lost job in this Marker, I was in US when dot-com burst happened, But even then I don't think it was as bad as this time around.
Worst part is every one I talk to says that worst is still to come. If it is so bad now , I don't know what it will be like when it is "worst". Scary situation. Even if you forget about GC, Getting a job and holding on to the job will be difficult.
:confused::confused::confused::confused:
Worst part is every one I talk to says that worst is still to come. If it is so bad now , I don't know what it will be like when it is "worst". Scary situation. Even if you forget about GC, Getting a job and holding on to the job will be difficult.
:confused::confused::confused::confused:
psam
03-09 07:31 PM
Hopefully you get a different officer. In my case they officer stamped I-551 on passport which was valid for six months for travel purpose and 1 year for employment.
Other online links suggest to talk with your congressperson so see if you get lucky.
Green Card Lost in the Mail - What to do When Your Green Card is Lost in the Mail (http://immigration.about.com/od/greencards/a/GreenCard_Lost.htm)
Other online links suggest to talk with your congressperson so see if you get lucky.
Green Card Lost in the Mail - What to do When Your Green Card is Lost in the Mail (http://immigration.about.com/od/greencards/a/GreenCard_Lost.htm)
2011 Emma Watson: Vogue UK December
yabadaba
11-06 02:13 PM
dude...ur i-140 is also not approved..sit tight
more...
![emma watson vogue 2010. emma watson vogue 2010. “[Emma Watson] adds designer](http://thestylistsite.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/vogue-us-march-2011-emma-watson-in-style-ethics.jpg "emma watson vogue 2010. “[Emma Watson] adds designer")
Juan28210
11-03 03:59 PM
Hi,
I'm on H1b visa. My employer refuses to pay for my medical insurance. Does anyone know if this is legal?
Thanks.
I'm on H1b visa. My employer refuses to pay for my medical insurance. Does anyone know if this is legal?
Thanks.
sparky_jones
02-03 02:44 PM
Documentation informing the USCIS of your having utilized AC21 benefits isn't necessary, but is a proactive measure usually taken to have a clean slate on the applicant's part.
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
I agree...sending the AC21 documentation to satisfy the "burden of proof" in extenuating circumstances, should they arise, is justifiable, as long as the applicant does not assume that the AC21 documentation will indeed be attached to their 485 file, and thus they won't get an employment-related RFE. Send the AC21 (and do it on your own, unless you have spare money to spend on a lawyer), but also keep in mind that sending the AC21 is not a legal requirement, and there is no guarantee that it will prevent USCIS from asking you to prove that you have a job that meets the certified labor at some time in the future.
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
I agree...sending the AC21 documentation to satisfy the "burden of proof" in extenuating circumstances, should they arise, is justifiable, as long as the applicant does not assume that the AC21 documentation will indeed be attached to their 485 file, and thus they won't get an employment-related RFE. Send the AC21 (and do it on your own, unless you have spare money to spend on a lawyer), but also keep in mind that sending the AC21 is not a legal requirement, and there is no guarantee that it will prevent USCIS from asking you to prove that you have a job that meets the certified labor at some time in the future.
more...
perm2gc
10-27 07:09 PM
I have applied for my H1B extension in july and got the approval in Aug...:D
2010 They#39;ve put Emma Watson and
LookingForGC
02-01 03:46 PM
Congratulation Mr. You experience is always needed here, please stay in touch here.
Good luck!
Good luck!
more...
Macaca
12-15 11:49 AM
I have not seen the USCIS catalog for H1B rules. I assume it should be available online at the state deptt.
My lawyer told me that you are in status as long as your application is being processed by USCIS. I don't know if you are in status if you apply for H1B and the quota is over for the year. I understand that USCIS may say that your application is not under consideration.
You can not start working before the start date mentioned on your H1B.
I understand that your OPT is expiring before the start of H1B. Is this correct? I was told by HR from Sun that you have to leave the country for the period.
I remind you that I have not seen the USCIS catalog.
My lawyer told me that you are in status as long as your application is being processed by USCIS. I don't know if you are in status if you apply for H1B and the quota is over for the year. I understand that USCIS may say that your application is not under consideration.
You can not start working before the start date mentioned on your H1B.
I understand that your OPT is expiring before the start of H1B. Is this correct? I was told by HR from Sun that you have to leave the country for the period.
I remind you that I have not seen the USCIS catalog.
hair emma watson vogue 2010. Emma Watson and Maje Fall 2010
Blog Feeds
02-01 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...
rakesh_uvce
10-10 09:01 AM
hi mpadapa,
I couldnt find that question. Do you know aapprox what time after the conference call started or the name of the guy who posted that question?
thanks
I couldnt find that question. Do you know aapprox what time after the conference call started or the name of the guy who posted that question?
thanks
hot emma watson vogue 2010. “[Emma Watson] adds designer
qwert_47
09-27 12:41 PM
^^^^^^^ bump
Appreciate any advice...thanks
Appreciate any advice...thanks
more...
house Emma Watson in Vogue Dec 2010
willigetgc?
01-21 01:15 PM
To avoid being like the thread running a few days ago, I don't want to be responding to each response. However, I do want clear a few things:
I am not promoting one parenting technique over the other.
As I said, I agree with a few things and disagree with a few things the author talks about.
Having kids myself, I cannot think of a parent who would do harm to their own child. Each set of parents come with their own parenting skills that works for them and their children. I leave it at that.
I only posted this because my doc asked me of my opinion and I in turn asked the opinion of IV members. If this thread is going to turn ugly, lets stop it, that was not my intention.
I am not promoting one parenting technique over the other.
As I said, I agree with a few things and disagree with a few things the author talks about.
Having kids myself, I cannot think of a parent who would do harm to their own child. Each set of parents come with their own parenting skills that works for them and their children. I leave it at that.
I only posted this because my doc asked me of my opinion and I in turn asked the opinion of IV members. If this thread is going to turn ugly, lets stop it, that was not my intention.
tattoo emma watson makeup.
sabr
09-18 04:44 PM
But if I get out of US and get back with H1b stamping will then I can start again with my current company as H1b while I wil work with EAD for another company full time?
more...
pictures Emma Watson for Vogue UK
raj2007
02-18 10:32 PM
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything in your wife's matter. The people you are referring to as the ones whose cases got accepted are the ones with bounced checks. There is a difference between the manner in which USCIS treats cases with bounced checks and cases where checks are missing, are in an incorrect amount, there is a mismatch between words and figures in the check, check is not dated, check is not signed, etc.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
dresses has that star factor. Emma
gchopes
08-04 09:41 AM
The following message from murhy forum over 3 years ago is still true. Correct? I cannot mail the renewed parole to my wife if she stays beyond the expiry of current parole.
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
more...
makeup emma watson :)
walking_dude
11-26 02:34 PM
Why do we always blame others for our problems? USCIS, DOL and now IVs lobbyists?
First of all, we wouldn't need any lobbyists if ALL members of our community ( including completely inert/inactive members like you) were doing their job. That is approaching the local lawmakers ( US Senators and Reps) office. If al 25,000 members of our site (or at least the majority of them) were doing this, we wouldn't even be needing any lobbying firm. We could have been doing it all ourselves, saving a lot of money and doing a better job.
Since that's not happening - because most members like you are scared shitless like Chicken Little that sky may fall on your heads if you do that - IV is not left with much option, but to use the services of the Lobbying firms.
Before asking Lobbying firm for refund, you should do your job of lobbying with your local lawmakers. If you were sharing your part of the responsibility, we wouldn't be needing them in the first place.
should we not ask for refund from our lobbyists..they lied to us last yearlobbying shoud be result oriented..not stuffing for their turkey...... sab hawa ke badhshah hai..;-)
First of all, we wouldn't need any lobbyists if ALL members of our community ( including completely inert/inactive members like you) were doing their job. That is approaching the local lawmakers ( US Senators and Reps) office. If al 25,000 members of our site (or at least the majority of them) were doing this, we wouldn't even be needing any lobbying firm. We could have been doing it all ourselves, saving a lot of money and doing a better job.
Since that's not happening - because most members like you are scared shitless like Chicken Little that sky may fall on your heads if you do that - IV is not left with much option, but to use the services of the Lobbying firms.
Before asking Lobbying firm for refund, you should do your job of lobbying with your local lawmakers. If you were sharing your part of the responsibility, we wouldn't be needing them in the first place.
should we not ask for refund from our lobbyists..they lied to us last yearlobbying shoud be result oriented..not stuffing for their turkey...... sab hawa ke badhshah hai..;-)
girlfriend Not only does Emma Watson
saileshdude
05-21 11:13 PM
Saileshdude,
Can you eloborate more on this? My understanding is that once you use EAD, H1 is gone for good. And particularly How one can revert back to H1 if EAD is used to join different employer?
This I think comes from AC21 regulations as well as one of the AC21 memos that were released. It mentions that a person can get H1 beyond 6 years even though they are not maitaining the H status as long as they can prove that their GC is pending . This may include pending I-485. I think the memo says that person need not maintain H status to get extension beyond 6 years without being counted against quota.
I think the H1 can be filed but since you are on EAD, you will not get I-94. This means that you will need to go out and get the H1 stamped and re-enter to get back on H status.
Again, various attorneys differ on this too. So consult few good attorneys for this would be good idea.
Can you eloborate more on this? My understanding is that once you use EAD, H1 is gone for good. And particularly How one can revert back to H1 if EAD is used to join different employer?
This I think comes from AC21 regulations as well as one of the AC21 memos that were released. It mentions that a person can get H1 beyond 6 years even though they are not maitaining the H status as long as they can prove that their GC is pending . This may include pending I-485. I think the memo says that person need not maintain H status to get extension beyond 6 years without being counted against quota.
I think the H1 can be filed but since you are on EAD, you will not get I-94. This means that you will need to go out and get the H1 stamped and re-enter to get back on H status.
Again, various attorneys differ on this too. So consult few good attorneys for this would be good idea.
hairstyles Emma Watson Vogue UK December
permfiling
01-18 01:35 PM
Thanks for the correction to 4k. As the terms says "applicable under law". I think the agreement is in place to scare the person from leaving early. As she is in CA, i don't think CA laws honor these agreements
Vysh
11-21 09:55 AM
Sent an email
sanjay02
11-21 12:55 PM
I saw the following status on I-131
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
No comments:
Post a Comment