nav_kri
04-01 08:09 PM
Yes, the info is right
Found this text at http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/srsvisaholder.html
Important note: A new and updated version of the AINP Occupations Under Pressure List for the Strategic Recruitment Stream � U.S. Visa Holder Category will be posted to this site on April 15, 2009. Any applications postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the list currently posted. All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
Found this text at http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/srsvisaholder.html
Important note: A new and updated version of the AINP Occupations Under Pressure List for the Strategic Recruitment Stream � U.S. Visa Holder Category will be posted to this site on April 15, 2009. Any applications postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the list currently posted. All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
wallpaper Epiphone Les Paul Standard Plaintop in Honeyburst
javadeveloper
09-27 04:30 PM
Hi All,
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
I have same issue:
My paralegals response:
He gave USCIS's Ph# and asked me to call them
USCIS's response:
Don't worry , during 485's approval time USCIS will find that I have two A#'s and consolidate those two numbers.
Now as per other members , do I need to raise this issue with IO at the time of Finger printing??? If we do what we can expect from IO at FP office?
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
I have same issue:
My paralegals response:
He gave USCIS's Ph# and asked me to call them
USCIS's response:
Don't worry , during 485's approval time USCIS will find that I have two A#'s and consolidate those two numbers.
Now as per other members , do I need to raise this issue with IO at the time of Finger printing??? If we do what we can expect from IO at FP office?
LostInGCProcess
09-04 01:25 PM
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
That is because of the computers at work as opposed to humans. When USCIS revoke I-140, it triggers NOID for the I-485 that is attached to the I-140, automatically.
That is because of the computers at work as opposed to humans. When USCIS revoke I-140, it triggers NOID for the I-485 that is attached to the I-140, automatically.
2011 Epiphone Les Paul Standard
chanduv23
04-27 10:44 PM
No TSC is not. TSC goes by priority date and not processing date. TSC I have seen follows different processing style. For e.g. if your namecheck/security check or some kind of check is pending they dont send you FP notice. Also they process applications if your PD is current/close to recent bulletin.
This is your own theory.
In reality there is no consistency.
This is your own theory.
In reality there is no consistency.
more...
eb3_2004
11-19 12:28 PM
Check now...It is updated
abhijitp
01-28 08:14 PM
Tomorrow evening, can you rise to the occasion???
more...
jthomas
06-10 12:30 PM
we should fax/email letters to lawmakers/senators from every angle. One way of doing this would be drafting a letter with the calculation and a quote " Just for Indians, and chinese nationality for rest of the world = 1year"
We should be attacking in each and every angle so they get used to reading our issues and would come with a solution.
MAKE A NOISE
We should be attacking in each and every angle so they get used to reading our issues and would come with a solution.
MAKE A NOISE
2010 Epiphone Les Paul Standard
glen
05-04 02:50 PM
As per my understanding you can apply for one year H1-B extension based on LC or wait for I-140 approval till August and then apply for 3 year H1-B extension.
Hi Madhuri,
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Hi Madhuri,
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
more...
thomachan72
06-18 07:25 AM
But for filing the 485 (US green cared last stage) you need to be physically present within the US and it will be difficult to comute across the border at this stage. This is a very complicated issue and you can never predict the outcome. However, apply both and stay in canada now. Try to complete the 2 year requirement in canada and then you can move back to the US and file the 485. Another thing I heard is if a canadian company hires you and places you in a US location, you can stay in the US and claim years of residence towards the canadian PR, because you are being paid in canada (something like that). If that works then at the same time your LC can be done here. then if dates are current 140 and 485 filed concurrently.
Anyway lot of us might be thinking about this approach and lets wait for more replies and more clarity.
Anyway lot of us might be thinking about this approach and lets wait for more replies and more clarity.
hair Gibson 2008 Les Paul Standard
basav
08-03 03:20 PM
I came to US in March 2007 on L1B, mean time applied for H1b during April 2008 which got approved with COS effective from Oct 1 2008,
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave !
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave !
more...
gcdreamer05
01-09 12:29 PM
Anotehr question in thsi regard, say ur I-94 expired and you applied for and got h1 renewal, and the new I-797 has the new I-94 in it, so we cut it from there and staple it to our passports ???
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
hot Epiphone Les Paul Standard
BNcBpLDdMw~~_1.JPG%3Fset_id%3D8800005007 "2009 EPIPHONE LES PAUL")
laksmi
12-03 08:17 PM
My wife is not H4, she is working on EAD and we applied her I-485 last July. She has to travel to India for an emegency. We applied for AP last month, have the receipt but it is not approved. Is it okay if she travels to India without AP approval? I will be here and I can take her approved AP when I go there after two months.
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
If your wife is having H4 visa on her passport and visa is still valid, she can use H4 itself to move in and out of country, no need of AP.
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
If your wife is having H4 visa on her passport and visa is still valid, she can use H4 itself to move in and out of country, no need of AP.
more...
house NEW 2010 EPIPHONE LES PAUL STANDARD. PLAIN TOP. HONEYBURST
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 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)
tattoo Epiphone Les Paul Standard Honey Burst Electric Guitar
rockstart
01-09 11:53 AM
As far as I know he was allowed to board the flight. No issues there but there can be issues when he re-enters US. Since he was on B1 (10 year Multiple) he can stay max 6 months in US so he has I 94 till Apr 09 but if he say come in Oct 09 to US again the system might not have checked him off so it might display that he is still in US and he overstayed his Visa and so CBP will call him in for secondary inspection. As far as I know it can be resolved by showing flight ticket stub and arrival stamp in destination country etc. Its more if hassle than anything.
more...
pictures Re: honey burst les paul pics
pcs
01-21 05:10 PM
Please send email invitations to different associations though this link.....
http://www.going2usa.com/education/isa.html
This should get us a lot of young members
http://www.going2usa.com/education/isa.html
This should get us a lot of young members
dresses 2009 EPIPHONE LES PAUL
Berkeleybee
02-14 03:06 PM
Thanks for the link to the 2005 report, Arihant.
Will look for stats for the next iteration of the presentation.
Will look for stats for the next iteration of the presentation.
more...
makeup Gibson Les Paul Standard 2008
mammoy2k
11-12 05:56 PM
I wouldappreciate if any of you could shed light on the following scenario:
If485 i spending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
If485 i spending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
girlfriend Epiphone Elitist Les Paul
maristella61
02-27 09:28 AM
If you have filed for I-485 and you have your receipt # (starting with LIN) and you have a copy of the encashed check or the proof of the financial transaction (could be you, your employer or lawyer) and the online status says I-485 Adjustment of Status pending, then you have nothing to worry about. If you had moved or changed your address it may have been misplaced. But you have nothing to worry about if the checks are cashed and you have the Receipt #.
You mention receipt number starting with LIN ,I have a receipt number starting with SRC . Anyone know the difference ,if there is one ?
thanks
You mention receipt number starting with LIN ,I have a receipt number starting with SRC . Anyone know the difference ,if there is one ?
thanks
hairstyles Epiphone Les Paul Standard
bmoni
01-28 06:28 PM
First thing, call one of the high powered attorneys discuss with them what options you have.
I think there is a recent court ruling that will favor you in fighting the USCIS decisions.
This is the first time we're (I'm) seeing such a denial notice related to the recent memo. So who ever thinks this is just a memo or USCIS reiterating existing rules. Rethink your stand. I'm sure more people will wake up soon.
Keep up the hope. Don't wait if possible try to apply for another new H1B.
Thanks for posting the denial notice. I feel your pain. Again don't lose your hope keep up the fight. If you hear any updates please do post them.
I think there is a recent court ruling that will favor you in fighting the USCIS decisions.
This is the first time we're (I'm) seeing such a denial notice related to the recent memo. So who ever thinks this is just a memo or USCIS reiterating existing rules. Rethink your stand. I'm sure more people will wake up soon.
Keep up the hope. Don't wait if possible try to apply for another new H1B.
Thanks for posting the denial notice. I feel your pain. Again don't lose your hope keep up the fight. If you hear any updates please do post them.
sledge_hammer
02-07 07:46 PM
Just put in my year.
When you sign for membership, there is a question you answer about EB category and PD, so I guess all 8600+ members have that. I mean we already have the information and most of the members seem to be in S/W.
Is there anyway we can use this information thats in out database already, to come up with numbers? I assume that it should be do-able, however I am practically ignorant when it comes to computers. I mean I can use word and surf on the net, but thats it, but among all the experts we have here, maybe someone can work something out.
The admin will be able to answer this ....
When you sign for membership, there is a question you answer about EB category and PD, so I guess all 8600+ members have that. I mean we already have the information and most of the members seem to be in S/W.
Is there anyway we can use this information thats in out database already, to come up with numbers? I assume that it should be do-able, however I am practically ignorant when it comes to computers. I mean I can use word and surf on the net, but thats it, but among all the experts we have here, maybe someone can work something out.
The admin will be able to answer this ....
gc_check
04-12 03:32 PM
Two Days Left for Submission of Comments to DOL on Substitution Elimination Proposed Rule....
IV Members, what do you folks think?
I suggest elimination of labour substitution is good for many of us and also help avoid people getting into the GC line in front of many people waiting for years, Many companies and attorney's suggest the labour substituion must be allowed, but I think the opposite... Any comments on this
IV Members, what do you folks think?
I suggest elimination of labour substitution is good for many of us and also help avoid people getting into the GC line in front of many people waiting for years, Many companies and attorney's suggest the labour substituion must be allowed, but I think the opposite... Any comments on this
No comments:
Post a Comment