minimalist
11-16 10:39 PM
Nope. That is not true. Either the company/lawyer is screwing your friend!
You can avoid the waiting period by using "Notice and Consider".
I had the same experience with FDBL lawyers, those guys were awful.
Luckily BAL took over, and they mentioned about "Notice and Consider" and did make use of that for labor filing.
Hope this helps.
You cannot file labor when there are lay-offs. Something to do with how can you hire some foreign labor when youbjusrt fired some.
Unlike belmontboy,I don't have first hand experience though. Hopefully other members will shed some more light.
You can avoid the waiting period by using "Notice and Consider".
I had the same experience with FDBL lawyers, those guys were awful.
Luckily BAL took over, and they mentioned about "Notice and Consider" and did make use of that for labor filing.
Hope this helps.
You cannot file labor when there are lay-offs. Something to do with how can you hire some foreign labor when youbjusrt fired some.
Unlike belmontboy,I don't have first hand experience though. Hopefully other members will shed some more light.
wallpaper the eiffel tower cartoon,
nozerd
09-07 09:34 AM
Just to clarify I will not be working in US at all. I will only work in Canada and getting paid in Canada. I will only come to US for personal reasons (meeting fly etc) not work. Can I use the H1 stamp to enter under those circumstances.
centaur
07-28 04:18 PM
:)
One more expert...:D
One more expert...:D
2011 eiffel tower cartoon
senthiltamil
09-22 08:54 PM
Mine is in TSC.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
vinzak
03-07 02:44 PM
Hello all,
I filed for EAD renewal at TSC in early Jan 11. My current EAD expires end of April. I am just wondering how long TSC is currently taking to renew EADs.
Any experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I filed for EAD renewal at TSC in early Jan 11. My current EAD expires end of April. I am just wondering how long TSC is currently taking to renew EADs.
Any experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
admin
05-21 10:46 PM
eb3india,
Have you done any kind of research into the two questions that you have raised namely the 245(i) problem and the nurse categories. Please do it and you will find how they came into picture.
A sincere request to all our members. Before demanding a response from the core group, we hope you do more research on your flash thoughts. All the core group members have a full time job and are doing this in our free time apart from work and family. Given that it is crunch time in the Senate, we really don't have the time now to respond to all queries.
Have you done any kind of research into the two questions that you have raised namely the 245(i) problem and the nurse categories. Please do it and you will find how they came into picture.
A sincere request to all our members. Before demanding a response from the core group, we hope you do more research on your flash thoughts. All the core group members have a full time job and are doing this in our free time apart from work and family. Given that it is crunch time in the Senate, we really don't have the time now to respond to all queries.
more...
psaxena
06-22 07:54 PM
to get some smile on your faces..
Still thinking what Jeniffer(Usha ji) will make the immigrants do.. may be ask to make some pasta!!
Still thinking what Jeniffer(Usha ji) will make the immigrants do.. may be ask to make some pasta!!
2010 tower - ad electrical
optimist578
12-28 09:51 AM
To my understanding, if a person holding EAD is allowed to change jobs, he is not really tied to any particular employer. But the job description according to the I-485 form should hold true to anything you do till it is approved.
I am not sure if you can take a leave of absence, though. My hunch, would be 'no'. I am also in a similar situation and looking for some advice. Let me know, if you find an answer.
Thank You.
All the gurus on this forum,
I have this questions and I have feeling some of you are considering doijng this;;;;
My I-140 and 485 was concurrently filed in Dec2002. I-140 got approved. 485 is pending.
As i decided that this GC process should not hold me captive i went ahead made plans for my MBA education. Now I have an admission from INSEAD france for classes starting 2007.
IF my employer gives me Pesonal Leave of Abscene for one year....without pay
can I take off for studies without impacting the GCprocess?
Since I will be moving out of my residenec should I inform the INS of a new address friends) so that they can send EAD/AP etc..
I would love to connect to anyone who is similar situation......
PLEASE respond
:(
I am not sure if you can take a leave of absence, though. My hunch, would be 'no'. I am also in a similar situation and looking for some advice. Let me know, if you find an answer.
Thank You.
All the gurus on this forum,
I have this questions and I have feeling some of you are considering doijng this;;;;
My I-140 and 485 was concurrently filed in Dec2002. I-140 got approved. 485 is pending.
As i decided that this GC process should not hold me captive i went ahead made plans for my MBA education. Now I have an admission from INSEAD france for classes starting 2007.
IF my employer gives me Pesonal Leave of Abscene for one year....without pay
can I take off for studies without impacting the GCprocess?
Since I will be moving out of my residenec should I inform the INS of a new address friends) so that they can send EAD/AP etc..
I would love to connect to anyone who is similar situation......
PLEASE respond
:(
more...
LayoffBlog
01-27 01:32 PM
Sprint Nextel Corp. today said that it will lay off about 8,000 workers by April within “all levels” of the company.The carrier also said it will suspend the 401(k) matches for workers for 2009 and extend a freeze on annual salary increases started in 2008 through 2009. A tuition-reimbursement program was also suspended.Source: ComputerworldPosted in [...]http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=layoffblog.com&blog=5255291&post=1237&subd=layoffblog&ref=&feed=1
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/sprint-to-lay-off-8000-by-apri/)
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/sprint-to-lay-off-8000-by-apri/)
hair the eiffel tower cartoon,
return_to_india
12-19 02:36 AM
California unemployment quite high.
I have my backup as India ( i will sell one of my land properties there and survive ,
also no worry about medical costs - leading cause of bankrupt americans ), but what
about the citizen here, where do they go to survive ?!
I have my backup as India ( i will sell one of my land properties there and survive ,
also no worry about medical costs - leading cause of bankrupt americans ), but what
about the citizen here, where do they go to survive ?!
more...
freddy22
07-17 11:41 PM
misdemeanors can be CIMT's if they involve theft or dishonesty. a single misdemeanor might qualify under the petty offense exception, but because your son now faces a second conviction, the petty offense exception won't apply. One question: are you a naturalized US citizen? If so, your son might actually be a US citizen as well.
does not the INTENT to cause harm or INTENT to steal decide whether its a CMT?
He has on record 1 criminal mischief 4th and 1 petty larceny - he was with other boys when THEY joy rided snowmobiles - he did not steal anything just tagged along with them and rode with them but he did not intend to steal or take anything - both the criminal mischief and petty larceny charges are tied into this incident:
His latest charge will be reduced to a simple TRESSPASS from Burglary 2nd we know that as the DA has already indicated that to us:
So does this information make any difference to your opinion?
I thank you for responding!
He is a green card holder since December 2005 and eligible for filing naturalization in November next year but we have been physically present in the USA from 1999 gained entry legally and changed status while here:
He has no priors to any of this:
He has no convictions in any other country:
His mischief and petty larceny charges for the snow mobile incidents were charged as a youthful offender and sealed supposedly:
He is 19 in November this year:
He has never left the USA for any period of time or vacation or anything
does not the INTENT to cause harm or INTENT to steal decide whether its a CMT?
He has on record 1 criminal mischief 4th and 1 petty larceny - he was with other boys when THEY joy rided snowmobiles - he did not steal anything just tagged along with them and rode with them but he did not intend to steal or take anything - both the criminal mischief and petty larceny charges are tied into this incident:
His latest charge will be reduced to a simple TRESSPASS from Burglary 2nd we know that as the DA has already indicated that to us:
So does this information make any difference to your opinion?
I thank you for responding!
He is a green card holder since December 2005 and eligible for filing naturalization in November next year but we have been physically present in the USA from 1999 gained entry legally and changed status while here:
He has no priors to any of this:
He has no convictions in any other country:
His mischief and petty larceny charges for the snow mobile incidents were charged as a youthful offender and sealed supposedly:
He is 19 in November this year:
He has never left the USA for any period of time or vacation or anything
hot eiffel tower cartoon pic,
gc28262
03-27 10:05 AM
I entered on H1 not AP. Hope this is safe :).
Yes, you should be.
Yes, you should be.
more...
house eiffel tower black and
map_boiler
04-26 05:45 PM
The company HR or lawyer/paralegal should be able to login to the DOL website and check the case status. Since the case is pending for more than 6 months, you could have your lawyer submit an inquiry through AILA.
tattoo eiffel tower cartoon
WaldenPond
12-31 08:51 AM
In the Comprehensive Bill (Pls. see summary of this bill) to be discussed on the Senate/House floor Feb-06, Page 6 Section 311 provides for exemption on temporary workers with advanced degrees from US universities from numerical limit.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
With this provision going into effect, it will free up current H1s that have gone towards the count of numerical limit in current financial Yr. USCIS may have to do the count again to differentiate between applicants with advanced degrees from US universities and come up with the number of free H1s. My guestimate is it maybe 30% of the total visa avaliable which is something like 30% of (65K+20K) ~ 25K.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
With this provision going into effect, it will free up current H1s that have gone towards the count of numerical limit in current financial Yr. USCIS may have to do the count again to differentiate between applicants with advanced degrees from US universities and come up with the number of free H1s. My guestimate is it maybe 30% of the total visa avaliable which is something like 30% of (65K+20K) ~ 25K.
more...
pictures MT0057 C1520, MT Digital middot; c
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
dresses eiffel tower cartoon
p_kumar
11-30 12:22 PM
As the IO officers explained to you, instead of approving some other document(s), USCIS wrongly approved your I-485 application.
Regards
K
I wish the USCIS would wrongly approve my citizenship application even though i dont have GC yet:D
Regards
K
I wish the USCIS would wrongly approve my citizenship application even though i dont have GC yet:D
more...
makeup tower cartoon pictures,
Marphad
03-29 11:12 AM
I will still wait for lawyer's opinion.
girlfriend the vector eiffel tower Stock
king37
01-18 11:00 AM
i applied in 2003 and got in 2005.. its very simple actually .. u can write to me i can help you out
hairstyles princess cartoon
Humpakistani
03-26 02:13 AM
its processing time is not more then a week
Rb_newsletter
09-18 05:31 PM
US Laws protect employees completely.
If at all your current employer wants to do anything they can sue your new H1 sponsor or the end client. If your end client and new employer's attorneys are ok to sponsor H1 and job contract, then you don't have to worry.
3 years before I wanted to join my then end client directly. But their vendor manager refused becos they had signed an agreement with my then employer stating that they will not hire any resource for 6 months from the date they leave the work.
If at all your current employer wants to do anything they can sue your new H1 sponsor or the end client. If your end client and new employer's attorneys are ok to sponsor H1 and job contract, then you don't have to worry.
3 years before I wanted to join my then end client directly. But their vendor manager refused becos they had signed an agreement with my then employer stating that they will not hire any resource for 6 months from the date they leave the work.
EB-VoiceImmigration
09-07 03:17 PM
How about even a much better solution, learn your country's national language......:)
My Initial reaction to this post and others(including the one who said he is from AP .. but I believe in reality he is not..) who think every one in india should learn hindi.
--> FCUK U. Who the hell are you to say this ?
Now.. lets dicuss...
It is not even a requirement in India to learn hindi. Why in the world it is required to access a forum based on US EB immigration?
Dont get zealous of raise of south in IT and lets not make a debate on what people are doing in our part of the world. It will never end.
My Initial reaction to this post and others(including the one who said he is from AP .. but I believe in reality he is not..) who think every one in india should learn hindi.
--> FCUK U. Who the hell are you to say this ?
Now.. lets dicuss...
It is not even a requirement in India to learn hindi. Why in the world it is required to access a forum based on US EB immigration?
Dont get zealous of raise of south in IT and lets not make a debate on what people are doing in our part of the world. It will never end.
No comments:
Post a Comment