pmat
01-31 02:18 PM
As per the law, your H1B will still be valid even in if I-140 is revoked. However, the only flip side is one will lose the old priority date.
For sure, this is exactly outlined in the law. I have known some cases who are working successfully and legally on H1Bs even after their I-140s revoked (by the way one of them is in 8th year of H1B)
Im 100% sure about what i said. For better clarification, one can contact murthy.com or rajiv.s.khanna
I don't think that the priority date is lost if the I-140 is revoked. If it is revoked because of fraud then only you may lose the priority date. If your I-140 was genuine and you have a copy of the approval, you can still use the old priority date even if the company revokes the I-140.
For sure, this is exactly outlined in the law. I have known some cases who are working successfully and legally on H1Bs even after their I-140s revoked (by the way one of them is in 8th year of H1B)
Im 100% sure about what i said. For better clarification, one can contact murthy.com or rajiv.s.khanna
I don't think that the priority date is lost if the I-140 is revoked. If it is revoked because of fraud then only you may lose the priority date. If your I-140 was genuine and you have a copy of the approval, you can still use the old priority date even if the company revokes the I-140.
wallpaper More Pattern
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.
inspectorfox
07-17 02:18 PM
Excerpt from Gregs blog and comments :(
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
What's the point of starting a new thread to throw in your opinion?
Servers and all members are already very stressed.
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
What's the point of starting a new thread to throw in your opinion?
Servers and all members are already very stressed.
2011 Pattern Background
kumar1
07-28 01:18 AM
I have a question, my attorney says that he has filed the application on 2nd July without my signature.
I have not given any authorization also.
I am worried if it is valid or not.
I don't know if they take authorization from my employer or it should be from me.
Please suggest.
v
I have not given any authorization also.
I am worried if it is valid or not.
I don't know if they take authorization from my employer or it should be from me.
Please suggest.
v
more...
Jaime
09-04 11:57 AM
Rally slogan?
snthampi
08-17 12:40 PM
I have all proofs timesheets and bankstatements and email conversations. But, i am worried because he is threatening me saying he will go to court and sue me for working at the same client. Do i have chance to win the case if i fight back.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
more...
dollar500
04-09 08:50 PM
Thanks all.
2010 girly patterns backgrounds. Girly Pattern Myspace 3.0
fide_champ
08-04 07:05 PM
Hi , Thanks again for the reply.
Related to Point 3 ,reason why im trying to this is to avoid all of us leaving country due to non approval of my COS, I dont have luxury to stay on L1 beyond next 2 months..
well, i realistically see two options here:
1. Get your family here ASAP and apply COS for all. If your COS gets approved, most likely theirs will get approved as well. You can do yours in premium and theirs by regular. As long as they get the receipt within 2 months, they'll be in status.
2. You can apply COS for yourself in premium and ask your family to stamp H4. If they get stuck in 221g, then it could be months before they get here. That's the downside.
Your L1 visa stays if your COS gets rejected, so you don't have to leave immediately.
Related to Point 3 ,reason why im trying to this is to avoid all of us leaving country due to non approval of my COS, I dont have luxury to stay on L1 beyond next 2 months..
well, i realistically see two options here:
1. Get your family here ASAP and apply COS for all. If your COS gets approved, most likely theirs will get approved as well. You can do yours in premium and theirs by regular. As long as they get the receipt within 2 months, they'll be in status.
2. You can apply COS for yourself in premium and ask your family to stamp H4. If they get stuck in 221g, then it could be months before they get here. That's the downside.
Your L1 visa stays if your COS gets rejected, so you don't have to leave immediately.
more...
Nikith77
10-05 03:03 PM
I was trying to open a brokerage account with Bank Of America (Merrill Lynch) which was denied as it does not recognize EAD.
The web site clearly says that you should be a citizen or a green card to open an account
Did anyone opened it recently.
The web site clearly says that you should be a citizen or a green card to open an account
Did anyone opened it recently.
hair girly patterns backgrounds. Plaid+pattern+wallpaper
bigsky
10-17 06:43 PM
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department�s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750�s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750�s. The other set of 750�s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750�s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750�s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer�s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
This Notice of Findings is the Department�s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750�s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750�s. The other set of 750�s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750�s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750�s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer�s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
more...
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)
hot Background - Concept
kaisersose
08-01 01:09 PM
Wishful thinking.
1. All they did in June was to assign visa numbers to already processed 485 applications. These cases were fully processed and were just awaiting visa numbers for approval. They could have just as easily assigned 4 million visa numbers in that time frame. Hence, this June activity has no bearing on actual 485 processing time as this also includes security checks (can run into years) which are not in the hands of of the USCIS.
2. Rajiv Khanna says not all visa numbers for the fiscal year are made available on Oct 01. Visa numbers are released in limited batches for the first 3 quarters. It is only during the last quarter (July-September) that DOS is allowed to go to town and release all pending numbers of that year.
1. All they did in June was to assign visa numbers to already processed 485 applications. These cases were fully processed and were just awaiting visa numbers for approval. They could have just as easily assigned 4 million visa numbers in that time frame. Hence, this June activity has no bearing on actual 485 processing time as this also includes security checks (can run into years) which are not in the hands of of the USCIS.
2. Rajiv Khanna says not all visa numbers for the fiscal year are made available on Oct 01. Visa numbers are released in limited batches for the first 3 quarters. It is only during the last quarter (July-September) that DOS is allowed to go to town and release all pending numbers of that year.
more...
house dot pattern background on
immi_seeker
07-14 01:19 PM
Hopefully so..Thanks
You have PD as Nov 2005, EB2.
Now the VB is on 2006.
They must have known atleast a month back.
They issued just 3 months extension
All matching perfectly and result will be good one for you....
You have PD as Nov 2005, EB2.
Now the VB is on 2006.
They must have known atleast a month back.
They issued just 3 months extension
All matching perfectly and result will be good one for you....
tattoo Black pattern wallpaper4782
rimzhim
06-01 01:38 PM
"Masters and PhDs would be exempt from the cap on H-1Bs and green cards," said Hoffman.
Are you sure of this? I, of course, hope you are right. It would be great!
Are you sure of this? I, of course, hope you are right. It would be great!
more...
pictures girly patterns backgrounds. repeating tile pattern.
dbevis
November 9th, 2003, 06:40 AM
To bad this image got corrupted somehow in the server move....a repost of the full image would sure be great.
That's really weird. I reattached it and the link works again.
Don
That's really weird. I reattached it and the link works again.
Don
dresses Girly Pattern Twitter
jnraajan
03-24 05:22 PM
Good Job Mark.
more...
makeup ON PATTERN BACKGROUNDS
hopefulgc
07-13 11:46 AM
kinda confused here..
why do we need the rally.. if there is going to be some new that will resolve the issues?
If its going to leave some issues unresolved.. the we need this.
Go IV!!
why do we need the rally.. if there is going to be some new that will resolve the issues?
If its going to leave some issues unresolved.. the we need this.
Go IV!!
girlfriend Pink Heart Backgrounds
Jeff Wheeler
11-27 04:36 AM
Hmm... I didn't know about AIR issues you mentioned.. ;( On PC it works great, and people at Adobe (as I can see on videos) use Mac OS as their primary OS.
AIR on Linux is in beta, and it�s no question why. It�s a second-class citizen.
btw considering Mono... We had an ASP.NET app that had to be ported to Linux.. We did it with Mono, but... there were huge problems with memory leaks.. So colleague had to rewrite it completely in PHP.. So, my (bad) experience tells me not to use .NET on Linux... Perhaps they fixed it though? Ugh, somehow I don't believe that Microsoft cares for any other OS but its own.. ?
ASP.NET may be different from normal .NET apps, but there are many first-class C# apps that run in Mono�s runtime environment that can be ported from *nix to even OS X.
I can�t speak for your experiences, but if you rewrote it in PHP, it probably wasn�t intended to a normal GUI app in the first place. PHP is an odd replacement, if so.
AIR on Linux is in beta, and it�s no question why. It�s a second-class citizen.
btw considering Mono... We had an ASP.NET app that had to be ported to Linux.. We did it with Mono, but... there were huge problems with memory leaks.. So colleague had to rewrite it completely in PHP.. So, my (bad) experience tells me not to use .NET on Linux... Perhaps they fixed it though? Ugh, somehow I don't believe that Microsoft cares for any other OS but its own.. ?
ASP.NET may be different from normal .NET apps, but there are many first-class C# apps that run in Mono�s runtime environment that can be ported from *nix to even OS X.
I can�t speak for your experiences, but if you rewrote it in PHP, it probably wasn�t intended to a normal GUI app in the first place. PHP is an odd replacement, if so.
hairstyles Girly Myspace Backgrounds
4yourforGC
07-06 02:21 PM
Hi, there,
I've just done my final interview with one company. they are very satisfied with my experiences and tech skills and have strong intent to hire me. after several time interviews with them, there is only 2 candidates left. I am the one of them. but now the hiring manager has concern on my visa problem. I am currently have EAD (will expire 1 year later) and my 140 has been approved and 485 pending is far over 180 days. I should not have visa problem, right? may I get your comments how I can convince this hiring manager on my status?
thank you a lot!
:confused:
I've just done my final interview with one company. they are very satisfied with my experiences and tech skills and have strong intent to hire me. after several time interviews with them, there is only 2 candidates left. I am the one of them. but now the hiring manager has concern on my visa problem. I am currently have EAD (will expire 1 year later) and my 140 has been approved and 485 pending is far over 180 days. I should not have visa problem, right? may I get your comments how I can convince this hiring manager on my status?
thank you a lot!
:confused:
raj2007
06-21 03:54 AM
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
No you will get all the benefits of I-485 filing lik EAD and AP. Only your 485 processing will suspend till your PD are current again.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
No you will get all the benefits of I-485 filing lik EAD and AP. Only your 485 processing will suspend till your PD are current again.
Becks
02-10 07:18 PM
Once you strart using EAD your H1 will be terminated. If you want to switch to H1 again your need to apply for fresh H1 in the new quota. You cant renew because its terminated.
So try to switch the job with H1 transfer if your new employer supports. Use EAD only when you dont have H1 option.
So assuming that I switch to EAD, does this mean that incase for whatever reason our I 485 application is denied, I can re claim the pending time on my h1b ? I am trying to figure out how is my h1b an umbrella?
So try to switch the job with H1 transfer if your new employer supports. Use EAD only when you dont have H1 option.
So assuming that I switch to EAD, does this mean that incase for whatever reason our I 485 application is denied, I can re claim the pending time on my h1b ? I am trying to figure out how is my h1b an umbrella?
No comments:
Post a Comment