hnordberg
November 26th, 2005, 05:58 PM
I prefer the dark one. It is more interesting and would work well in a gallery. Well done!
wallpaper Messy Computer Desk Clipart
greyhair
04-21 12:10 PM
greyhair - that was something i tried on my own and i have never represented IV.
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
I don't think constitution allows suing Congress because it has immunity. Based on the their approval ratings you would see thousands of lawsuits everyday if it was allows to sue congress.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)
In that case we would have to take a number in line to sue congress because it will be big line. In other words there will be backlog to sue Congress and that backlog would be bigger than the green card backlog. :)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
I don't think constitution allows suing Congress because it has immunity. Based on the their approval ratings you would see thousands of lawsuits everyday if it was allows to sue congress.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)
In that case we would have to take a number in line to sue congress because it will be big line. In other words there will be backlog to sue Congress and that backlog would be bigger than the green card backlog. :)
mbartosik
02-25 10:32 PM
Pappu is right (on earlier post on this thread)
To maybe make a little more clear, because the processing dates do not make any distinction between EB classes (EB1, EB2, EB3) when one EB class moves forward in the visa bulletin, then the service center may have to go backwards in processing date to process these because they received them earlier.
If they still pre-adjudicated they might not need to move the date backwards, but if they pre-adjudicated we are more likely to loss GC. For example if they adjudicate 180,000 applications per year, but that included 80,000 pre-adjudications then we would loss 40,000 visas that year. So now they adjudicate what they can issue visas for.
That being said there is still often no clear reason (to us) behind the dates. It would cause less frustration if clear reasons for dates were given.
To maybe make a little more clear, because the processing dates do not make any distinction between EB classes (EB1, EB2, EB3) when one EB class moves forward in the visa bulletin, then the service center may have to go backwards in processing date to process these because they received them earlier.
If they still pre-adjudicated they might not need to move the date backwards, but if they pre-adjudicated we are more likely to loss GC. For example if they adjudicate 180,000 applications per year, but that included 80,000 pre-adjudications then we would loss 40,000 visas that year. So now they adjudicate what they can issue visas for.
That being said there is still often no clear reason (to us) behind the dates. It would cause less frustration if clear reasons for dates were given.
2011 computer repairquot; clipart
cox
November 25th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Yeah, the DoF was insufficient, and that also made focusing difficult. The flower movement was irritating, and I need to learn to deal with that. I'm just getting started here. It seems that the reaction to the dark/light treatment is pretty split, maybe a little in favor of the light. I had two very different days lighting-wise, and got these contrasing shots. I kind of lean to the dark one, but they each have a different personality.
Gary, thanks for the tips. I was having a terrible time with the flower movement. I was on a tripod, remote shutter, 2.5x eyepiece and couldn't get the image crisp at smaller aperture. I finally figured out that it was small flower movements that were killing me. I moved to shallower DoF to get a faster shutter. Do you have any tips for holding the plant steady? You have some incredible shots, and must have come up with some techniques for immobilizing the flower without it showing up in the photo. I'd be grateful if you could share...
Gary, thanks for the tips. I was having a terrible time with the flower movement. I was on a tripod, remote shutter, 2.5x eyepiece and couldn't get the image crisp at smaller aperture. I finally figured out that it was small flower movements that were killing me. I moved to shallower DoF to get a faster shutter. Do you have any tips for holding the plant steady? You have some incredible shots, and must have come up with some techniques for immobilizing the flower without it showing up in the photo. I'd be grateful if you could share...
more...
BhanuPriya
06-11 02:41 PM
There is no problem in changing company and getting extension based on Approved I -140. Please contact a good attorney and proceed.
saravanaraj.sathya
08-22 03:07 PM
Paskal:
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
if no one responds here, please find a friend in Buffalo to travel with you!
or in Rochester or Syracuse or something. Plesae help spread the word about the rally. The University most definitely has affected folks- in fact it has oodles of them! let us know hoe we can help you with motivating people to come...if you could collect enough people...one bus could start in Buffalo and work it's way down...
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
if no one responds here, please find a friend in Buffalo to travel with you!
or in Rochester or Syracuse or something. Plesae help spread the word about the rally. The University most definitely has affected folks- in fact it has oodles of them! let us know hoe we can help you with motivating people to come...if you could collect enough people...one bus could start in Buffalo and work it's way down...
more...
eb3_nepa
04-27 06:13 PM
Apologise for 2 threads on the same thing. Tried going back and modifying the text a little bit, only to create a new thread.
2010 computer repair clip art.
gconmymind
05-12 06:59 PM
Absolutely
the only requirement is if we can strictly follow what has been mentioned in the post.
Its like this .. would we be ready to drop $1000 or $2000 to get GC years earlier?
i think the answer in my case is yes.
You have noble intentions and I salute your spirit but it does not make practical sense to try and raise $1M when on the other thread, we have not even touched $15K!! At least, this will not happen with a donations only campaign. If a corporate were to sponsor, thats a different thing..
Again, I think all (ok, most!) the members would donate $2000 if there was assurance/certainty of positive outcome. A lot of people are sitting on the sidelines, hoping for a positive outcome, without contributing time and/or money.
People, please contribute time and money towards IV to help yourselves!
the only requirement is if we can strictly follow what has been mentioned in the post.
Its like this .. would we be ready to drop $1000 or $2000 to get GC years earlier?
i think the answer in my case is yes.
You have noble intentions and I salute your spirit but it does not make practical sense to try and raise $1M when on the other thread, we have not even touched $15K!! At least, this will not happen with a donations only campaign. If a corporate were to sponsor, thats a different thing..
Again, I think all (ok, most!) the members would donate $2000 if there was assurance/certainty of positive outcome. A lot of people are sitting on the sidelines, hoping for a positive outcome, without contributing time and/or money.
People, please contribute time and money towards IV to help yourselves!
more...
dbevis
October 19th, 2003, 09:41 PM
i don't normally go for tricked-up stuff, but this one kind of hooked me. I did the "Ansel Adams" conversion to B&W which gave me a contrasty and "antique' look. Then I merged it with the original at about 45%.
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
hair Cartoon Screwdriver Clipart
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)
more...
LONGGCQUE
07-18 01:29 PM
ineedhelp,
Here are a few facts based on my first hand experience. I was employed with L&T Infotech for 5+ yrs and left them while in US on H1. Legally, they cannot do anything against you in US as bonds you signed were in Indian judicial limits and are not applicable in US. But yes, they can enforce it legally in India. I have heard and known cases wherein these Indian companies have taken employees to court. I am still following with my ex-company for settlement and they have a claim of 13-14K USD(they add interest on bond from the date you leave @ xx%). Get all papers from them before you part like detailed exp. letter etc, paystubs etc from GC perspective(if u r interested).
Read one of my posts of I140 issues that i am going thru. That will give you some idea of potential issues.
My advice - once you resign they will anyway take you to legal way in India...they will do this coz they have to follow there HR process and scare you and other people around you of repurcussions. Give them a resignation notice of 1-2 weeks and when they ask to stay a little longer to satisfy clients or knowledge transfer, then negotiate with them and get your paperwork etc. Decide on whats best in your future interests.
Good luck. It will work out well for you.
*** Not a lawyer advice ***
Here are a few facts based on my first hand experience. I was employed with L&T Infotech for 5+ yrs and left them while in US on H1. Legally, they cannot do anything against you in US as bonds you signed were in Indian judicial limits and are not applicable in US. But yes, they can enforce it legally in India. I have heard and known cases wherein these Indian companies have taken employees to court. I am still following with my ex-company for settlement and they have a claim of 13-14K USD(they add interest on bond from the date you leave @ xx%). Get all papers from them before you part like detailed exp. letter etc, paystubs etc from GC perspective(if u r interested).
Read one of my posts of I140 issues that i am going thru. That will give you some idea of potential issues.
My advice - once you resign they will anyway take you to legal way in India...they will do this coz they have to follow there HR process and scare you and other people around you of repurcussions. Give them a resignation notice of 1-2 weeks and when they ask to stay a little longer to satisfy clients or knowledge transfer, then negotiate with them and get your paperwork etc. Decide on whats best in your future interests.
Good luck. It will work out well for you.
*** Not a lawyer advice ***
hot Computer Doctor. Clip Art
hpandey
03-02 11:36 AM
Looks like your PD is current. You might get your GC anytime. That is another factor I would consider if your GC gets approved before you get married.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
more...
house computer repair clip art. pink
psczd4
09-27 06:21 PM
--u can find a one year program in your school and apply soon..they do have a certain time frame to accept your application for Spring semester, say mid of October(depends upon Univ.)...Financial assistant could be a factor but if you can somehow get an I-20 for that program..you should be safe
--Most important,get in touch with your advisor
--At last, apply for a toursit visa
Good Luck.
--Most important,get in touch with your advisor
--At last, apply for a toursit visa
Good Luck.
tattoo computer repair clip art.
gdr_09
04-19 10:54 PM
How did it get approved? Did u transfer u'r H1B to another company, after it gets denied?
Please share u'r experience.
Please share u'r experience.
more...
pictures Fix-It Utilities 5
raju123
06-26 02:51 PM
Numberusa reported following possible 24 amendments and Cantwell/Kyl amendment is not there. I hope this news is not right.
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
dresses hot So whats with the clip art computer repair clip art. computer repair
alterego
04-09 11:20 PM
Take the offer on EAD as you are now legally eligible to do.
In the unlikely event that something happens to your 485, you could then approach the program and ask them to do a H1 visa for you, otherwise you would have to leave the program. They would likely not risk losing GME funding.
Nowadays getting a good fellowship has gotten rather difficult, I'd consider taking the small risk involved.
Consult a good attorney to get their professional advise.
In the unlikely event that something happens to your 485, you could then approach the program and ask them to do a H1 visa for you, otherwise you would have to leave the program. They would likely not risk losing GME funding.
Nowadays getting a good fellowship has gotten rather difficult, I'd consider taking the small risk involved.
Consult a good attorney to get their professional advise.
more...
makeup Tired of taking your computer
gcseeker2002
08-14 02:24 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
girlfriend computer repair clip art.
new2gc
08-13 01:42 PM
Total H1Bs sponsored by the dirty 4 Indian companies are 12000 multiplied by $2000, gives 12 million if you add same no of L1 visas its only 24 million not 600 million. Obama requires a calculator .
Poor guys... they can give away $7.5 Billion to some country as Aid, but cannot secure their own borders without increasing burden on H1/L1 Visas for $0.6 Billion(not even 10% in comparison ) ....what a pity.... :mad:
This is pure B.S. politics....
Poor guys... they can give away $7.5 Billion to some country as Aid, but cannot secure their own borders without increasing burden on H1/L1 Visas for $0.6 Billion(not even 10% in comparison ) ....what a pity.... :mad:
This is pure B.S. politics....
hairstyles Royalty-Free (RF) Clip Art
Ann Ruben
07-14 08:02 AM
Hello Ruben,
Can you help me out on the visa? My employer had sent you an email last week to aruben@srrlaw.us with the subject name "Keerthi Shankar".
Earnestly waiting for your reply.
Thanks.
Hi Keerthi,
I would be happy to help. I don't recall getting an e-mail from your employer last week. It is possible that it ended up in a spam folder. Could you ask your employer to resend today and i will be on the lookout for it.
Ann
Can you help me out on the visa? My employer had sent you an email last week to aruben@srrlaw.us with the subject name "Keerthi Shankar".
Earnestly waiting for your reply.
Thanks.
Hi Keerthi,
I would be happy to help. I don't recall getting an e-mail from your employer last week. It is possible that it ended up in a spam folder. Could you ask your employer to resend today and i will be on the lookout for it.
Ann
retropain
08-25 02:02 PM
the media is going to be busy covering the elections till Nov first week or two. so you're not going to get much media coverage.
idea is not bad if it can be implemented correctly, with employer support of course.
idea is not bad if it can be implemented correctly, with employer support of course.
map_boiler
07-05 04:52 PM
If your labor cert contains language such as "...may work at one or more unanticipated locations", you should be fine with no need to re-start the GC process.
However, I would check with an attorney to be on the safe side.
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
However, I would check with an attorney to be on the safe side.
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment