Dhundhun
07-12 01:40 AM
I was plannig to go to Canada to take care of the landing formalities, but happened to visit this website, http://www.notcanada.com.
The details provided in the site is really scary. Though we keep Canadian PR as back up, after seeing this, I am wondering do I really need to go for landing.
Can someone validate the details provided in notcanada.com
Canada has been lacking of much opportunity and your friends may not open hearted to welcome you there and create opportunity. Perhaps they themselves feel at risk - or really lack of opportunity. I have been Canada for execution of couple of projects in early nineties several times.
It seems that it is no longer true. My son has couple of friends there and now his friends are proactively discussing about opportunities.
So I feel that for job scenarios will be very much different for 15 years experienced persons, 10 years experienced persons, 5 years experienced persons and recently graduated persons.
It may be better for young graduates. If you have 15+ years experience better to explore more.
This is based on personal experiences.
The details provided in the site is really scary. Though we keep Canadian PR as back up, after seeing this, I am wondering do I really need to go for landing.
Can someone validate the details provided in notcanada.com
Canada has been lacking of much opportunity and your friends may not open hearted to welcome you there and create opportunity. Perhaps they themselves feel at risk - or really lack of opportunity. I have been Canada for execution of couple of projects in early nineties several times.
It seems that it is no longer true. My son has couple of friends there and now his friends are proactively discussing about opportunities.
So I feel that for job scenarios will be very much different for 15 years experienced persons, 10 years experienced persons, 5 years experienced persons and recently graduated persons.
It may be better for young graduates. If you have 15+ years experience better to explore more.
This is based on personal experiences.
wallpaper Lioele Mix Eyebrow Cake #2.
rbms
04-20 02:49 PM
Per my lawyer,
1. USCIS does not mandate that you must inform when you invoke AC21. You can inform them if and when you get RFE.
2. I strongly believe that we should not accept job offers that is not related to the job you originally applied for. My lawyer says it is usually vague and if USCIS determines other wise I will be in trouble. And for the same reason I am hesitant to accept very good employee offer from my current client.
3. Self employment is ok as long as the requirements are met and that is what is I am doing now.
1. USCIS does not mandate that you must inform when you invoke AC21. You can inform them if and when you get RFE.
2. I strongly believe that we should not accept job offers that is not related to the job you originally applied for. My lawyer says it is usually vague and if USCIS determines other wise I will be in trouble. And for the same reason I am hesitant to accept very good employee offer from my current client.
3. Self employment is ok as long as the requirements are met and that is what is I am doing now.
surabhi
04-23 05:18 PM
There is moral obligation too. Whenever you hire H-1s make sure most of them have dreams to get GC and settle down. Dont take risks in such a ways their dreams get shattered because of poor business practices. just to hire people dont run in your businesses on losses and in turn force yourself to shut down the business.
I think there is difference of opinion here. Since there is chance here that the thread is frequented by current and would-be employers I will try to articulate once again.
1. H1B is a legitimate business expense. It should be factored in as such by the employers.
2. Same is case with GC. But given the fact tht after I-140 it becomes portable, it is perfectly ethical in my opinon to ask employee to put up the expense.
3. H1B or not, employment is at will in US. USICS granting 3 year H1B does not imply employee is bound for 3 years either in letter or spirit of law.
4. Unless the business produces IPR or the employee is in position to lure away exisitng clientele, non-compete doesnt hold water. Employers should refrain from using non-compete as scare tactic.
5. As a corollary to point #3, having term around employment in lieu of h1b processing is illegal. The point of lost business because of employee left doesnt hold good. Employers can only claim non-compete or non-solicitation if the case is geniune. Lost business because employee left will never be upheld.
6. Unless doing revenue sharing (80-20 etc), it is illegal to withold , not pay wages.
7. If employee requests running payroll while not on project in revenue sharing mode ( see #6 above) it should be on cost to employee including employer contribution of taxes. this is indeed a favor to employee.
8. If business needs to let go an employee and employee wants to continue for immigration reasons, it should be on cost to employee including employer contribution of taxes. this is indeed a favor to employee.
I think there is difference of opinion here. Since there is chance here that the thread is frequented by current and would-be employers I will try to articulate once again.
1. H1B is a legitimate business expense. It should be factored in as such by the employers.
2. Same is case with GC. But given the fact tht after I-140 it becomes portable, it is perfectly ethical in my opinon to ask employee to put up the expense.
3. H1B or not, employment is at will in US. USICS granting 3 year H1B does not imply employee is bound for 3 years either in letter or spirit of law.
4. Unless the business produces IPR or the employee is in position to lure away exisitng clientele, non-compete doesnt hold water. Employers should refrain from using non-compete as scare tactic.
5. As a corollary to point #3, having term around employment in lieu of h1b processing is illegal. The point of lost business because of employee left doesnt hold good. Employers can only claim non-compete or non-solicitation if the case is geniune. Lost business because employee left will never be upheld.
6. Unless doing revenue sharing (80-20 etc), it is illegal to withold , not pay wages.
7. If employee requests running payroll while not on project in revenue sharing mode ( see #6 above) it should be on cost to employee including employer contribution of taxes. this is indeed a favor to employee.
8. If business needs to let go an employee and employee wants to continue for immigration reasons, it should be on cost to employee including employer contribution of taxes. this is indeed a favor to employee.
2011 Jung Yuri – Black and White
franklin
07-10 06:16 PM
I am in the bay area and can help organize this. I have sent an request to add myself on the yahoo group.
PM me, I can send you conference call details
PM me, I can send you conference call details
more...
gc_aug_2010
08-20 01:25 PM
Congrats...Not sure whats happening with my case :( The officer is just sitting on it. It went to his desk on Aug 3 :(
How did you find out exactly which day it went to an officer?
How did you find out exactly which day it went to an officer?
man-woman-and-gc
09-15 03:50 PM
you are right we were not brought here on a gun point but at the same time we did not beg anyone to bring us here... it is entirely a two sided business deal... and no one is doing any favor to anyone here ... we are doing our job and they must do their's. and yes we are "Highly Skilled" and we do deserve repect and our voices do deserve to be heard. Sure they can put an Ad in any newspaper and replace me with someone else but the question here is not about you or me... it is about the "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS" and which in that case would include anyone who they bring in to replace me.
Absolutely agree...and also please note that yes, they may replace the individual me or the individual you....but can they replace the whole immigrant population who are in the long and endless queue for a GC?
United we stand folks.....individually we may be non-existent.
Absolutely agree...and also please note that yes, they may replace the individual me or the individual you....but can they replace the whole immigrant population who are in the long and endless queue for a GC?
United we stand folks.....individually we may be non-existent.
more...
mirage
03-07 11:25 AM
The Intent & Implicatins could easilty be challenged....I need not have to write how intent could be challenged, as fa as implications are concerned, country cap has given grief to certain section, while they are still living in the country...
Do we have any reference to say it is unconstitutional ? If EB country cap is unconstitutional, FB cap would be unconstitutional too.
IMO this entire country cap rule has racist intent. If the caps were to promote diversity, the cap should be based on ethnicity of US population (ctizens and GC holders). Are Indians and Chinese a a mjority in this country ? No.
How does putting a cap on total visa allocation per year promote diversity ?
Do we have any reference to say it is unconstitutional ? If EB country cap is unconstitutional, FB cap would be unconstitutional too.
IMO this entire country cap rule has racist intent. If the caps were to promote diversity, the cap should be based on ethnicity of US population (ctizens and GC holders). Are Indians and Chinese a a mjority in this country ? No.
How does putting a cap on total visa allocation per year promote diversity ?
2010 Korean/Black/Hispanic and
psaxena
09-11 12:01 PM
Pappu,
I think we should have the count of donors on the top of every page like we have the donation bar. This will give the way to see how many donors are there and then set the target to get more donors.
The shepherd has to get a bit more strict to direct the herd of sheeps.
Well said and I think the community cannot just always get, they have to learn to GIVE back (for their own cause) in this case.
It is atrocious to see people demanding action when their own contribution is ZERO (infact negative by wasting the precious bandwidth and creating divisions)
I think we should have the count of donors on the top of every page like we have the donation bar. This will give the way to see how many donors are there and then set the target to get more donors.
The shepherd has to get a bit more strict to direct the herd of sheeps.
Well said and I think the community cannot just always get, they have to learn to GIVE back (for their own cause) in this case.
It is atrocious to see people demanding action when their own contribution is ZERO (infact negative by wasting the precious bandwidth and creating divisions)
more...
sreenivas11
08-14 08:48 AM
Update from http://www.immigration-law.com/
hair created an 80s Korean mix
anurakt
10-25 12:49 PM
Guys,
I never beleive in polls. The questions are always framed in such a way so that max people go and answer the way the poll wants....example below
Q1 ... Do you as an American support CIR for resolving immigration issues this country faces ?
Q2 ... Do you as an American support CIR so that illegal immigrants be a Citizen of this country ?
Looks at the above two questions, I think for Q1 lot of people would say "Yes" and "No" for the Q2, so I never beleive on the polls , the questions are always framed to get the answer the poll wants.
I never beleive in polls. The questions are always framed in such a way so that max people go and answer the way the poll wants....example below
Q1 ... Do you as an American support CIR for resolving immigration issues this country faces ?
Q2 ... Do you as an American support CIR so that illegal immigrants be a Citizen of this country ?
Looks at the above two questions, I think for Q1 lot of people would say "Yes" and "No" for the Q2, so I never beleive on the polls , the questions are always framed to get the answer the poll wants.
more...
abhisam
12-07 01:23 PM
hey guys,
I was scared to take a trip to my country thinking that I would get my FP notice while I am away..but am back from my vacation and still no sign of FP.
I called the center..and the IO told me that they are within their processing times and they have upto 111 days to send me the FP notice?!!!
I had opened an SR on 3rd Oct...but of absolutely no use! I also got a letter from them stating that they are within their processing times.
any idea how to solve this mess?
I was scared to take a trip to my country thinking that I would get my FP notice while I am away..but am back from my vacation and still no sign of FP.
I called the center..and the IO told me that they are within their processing times and they have upto 111 days to send me the FP notice?!!!
I had opened an SR on 3rd Oct...but of absolutely no use! I also got a letter from them stating that they are within their processing times.
any idea how to solve this mess?
hot Can we turn this into a mixed
GC_sufferer
07-08 10:46 AM
Found this from Chinese website:
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/22918275.html
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/22918275.html
more...
house there was always a mix of
mhathi
03-26 02:25 PM
It is on main web page of IV.. How come I can be ignorant even if I wanted to be?:)
... What if USCIS decides to keep 100000 cases on
rack eating dust just by not moving the processing date for particular
service center? This you can see right now..
This is what I don't understand. Priority dates are set so only applications before that date can be approved. Processing dates are not set in that sense of the term.
All uscis does every month when they publish processing dates is look at the Receipt date of the application still pending at the time and publishes that info. So in that sense, "not moving the processing date" does not make sense. Unless you mean they deliberately reduce the number of hours they work so fewer applications are processed.
... What if USCIS decides to keep 100000 cases on
rack eating dust just by not moving the processing date for particular
service center? This you can see right now..
This is what I don't understand. Priority dates are set so only applications before that date can be approved. Processing dates are not set in that sense of the term.
All uscis does every month when they publish processing dates is look at the Receipt date of the application still pending at the time and publishes that info. So in that sense, "not moving the processing date" does not make sense. Unless you mean they deliberately reduce the number of hours they work so fewer applications are processed.
tattoo mixed asian-western race)
ramno1
08-28 10:36 AM
I sent my 485 to NSC on JUL 3rd, my 140 approved NSC, no receipts from
TSC yet. Does any body got receipts who applied on JUL 3rd...?
TSC yet. Does any body got receipts who applied on JUL 3rd...?
more...
pictures Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese
desi3933
07-08 04:15 PM
By does not allow to work, I meant, restricted in taking other opportunities that the person might be eligible to take. Even with AC-21, one is restricted to the field in which one originally applied for EB visa. Actually, because it is indefinite, it makes the case stronger that these people are here indefinitely and so should not be restricted in employment opportunities. Being for a temporary period, obviously one can be restricted any way, like say people on visitor visa not being allowed to work.
You are incorrect on multiple accounts.
But, before going there, let me ask you this. What is your legal reasoning to dispute the case you have mentioned?
Also, what do you mean by "because it is indefinite"? How do you define "indefinite"? My guess is, that you have not filed for I-485 and you foresee a long wait before eligible to file I-485 and this is what you have termed as "indefinite".
Hint: AC-21 is not for just GC job, it can be used for any job.
.
You are incorrect on multiple accounts.
But, before going there, let me ask you this. What is your legal reasoning to dispute the case you have mentioned?
Also, what do you mean by "because it is indefinite"? How do you define "indefinite"? My guess is, that you have not filed for I-485 and you foresee a long wait before eligible to file I-485 and this is what you have termed as "indefinite".
Hint: AC-21 is not for just GC job, it can be used for any job.
.
dresses asian mix with lack..now
peer123
06-13 07:58 PM
My attorney actually filed directly with TSC. So all my case numbers starts with SRC.
Is there any specific center we should be sending our 485 application. I have applied for I140 from Nebraska, can I apply for 485 in Texas...
Is there any specific center we should be sending our 485 application. I have applied for I140 from Nebraska, can I apply for 485 in Texas...
more...
makeup My Black Minidress Korean
jsb
11-26 02:27 PM
Hello
I dont have access to the certified labor copy , I am just wondering if we need it for AC21 purposes. I am not sure how to get it from my desi employer/ desi lawyer. I have a job offer with a fortune 200 company which is willing to do H1b transfer/extension so I am opting for H1b instead of EAD. I am pretty sure about the job description will satisfy the same/similar test.
Is the job title and job description mentioned on the labor cert? Mine is a pre perm case. Is it good to have copy of labor cert for AC21?
I-485 filing package should include a Letter of Reconfirmation of job-offer from your sponsor. This letter should describe what was in the LC. If you get a copy of this letter, you know what you need from your new employer. I-485 is your filing, therefore, you should not have difficulty in getting a copy of full set of what was filed.
I dont have access to the certified labor copy , I am just wondering if we need it for AC21 purposes. I am not sure how to get it from my desi employer/ desi lawyer. I have a job offer with a fortune 200 company which is willing to do H1b transfer/extension so I am opting for H1b instead of EAD. I am pretty sure about the job description will satisfy the same/similar test.
Is the job title and job description mentioned on the labor cert? Mine is a pre perm case. Is it good to have copy of labor cert for AC21?
I-485 filing package should include a Letter of Reconfirmation of job-offer from your sponsor. This letter should describe what was in the LC. If you get a copy of this letter, you know what you need from your new employer. I-485 is your filing, therefore, you should not have difficulty in getting a copy of full set of what was filed.
girlfriend Koreans use lack sesame in
manishs7
09-27 12:32 PM
I think your idea is good. But this could be very difficult to implement, at least for USCIS.
Another suggestion is that porting should be automatic. As soon as a person acquires the required qualification for EB2 + a letter from the company that the person's future job will be of EB2 caliber, UCSIS should put him/her in EB2 category. This is some thing we should work on.
So what happens to existing EB2 per your logic. Should their priority dates will also change based on the date when they became eligible. say someone with 15 years of experience with bachelors degree comes to US and files on EB2..so his date will be pushed to priority date of 10 years from now when he became eligible for EB2.
What happens when I port from EB3 to EB2 with Masters in year 2002. should my priority date would be moved from 2006 to 2002.
This logic is not implementable or priority dates should go in one direction (up) only, the one that suits your requirements. LOL..
Another suggestion is that porting should be automatic. As soon as a person acquires the required qualification for EB2 + a letter from the company that the person's future job will be of EB2 caliber, UCSIS should put him/her in EB2 category. This is some thing we should work on.
So what happens to existing EB2 per your logic. Should their priority dates will also change based on the date when they became eligible. say someone with 15 years of experience with bachelors degree comes to US and files on EB2..so his date will be pushed to priority date of 10 years from now when he became eligible for EB2.
What happens when I port from EB3 to EB2 with Masters in year 2002. should my priority date would be moved from 2006 to 2002.
This logic is not implementable or priority dates should go in one direction (up) only, the one that suits your requirements. LOL..
hairstyles Asian Black Hairstyles
anzerraja
07-20 09:49 AM
Dear Members
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
sss9i
11-21 07:18 PM
Please think workable plan
nixstor
07-08 11:24 AM
no it will not be voilation of the law at all. consider this scenario thats been going on for the last 30+ years. For example July 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was jan 2003 and the August 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was unavailable. EB2 india visa numbers might have already been used up when the August 2006 visa bulletin was released but they still accepted the AOS petitions filed until the end of July 2006, they did not issue an updated visa bulletin or a revised visa bulletin saying eb2 india numbers are used up and they will not accept eb2 india aos applications, they continued accpeting AOS applications until the end of july 2006.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
Absolutely, Those who filed in June 2006 had a visa number available which were exhausted by the month of Aug 2006. I am not saying that there is a one to one match between availability of visa number and adjudication of visa number. To be more clear, DOS and USCIS might have took 30K applications when there were 20k visa numbers. I am totally aware of this. How ever, all these went unnoticed because there was not a deluge of applications like this and USCIS did not care much about the extra 10K, who will wait until they are available. It could also be possible that they were doing this so randomly like they have done right now, with out proper communication and have not hurt each other. But the deluge of applications sure did bothered USCIS and hence they worked over time to exhaust numbers. As we all know, there is no rule to say that if there are 20K visa numbers, stop accepting applications once you reach 20K, they have to honor the VB for that month even though they get 200k applications. Thats why they exhausted the number by July 1st and when they could not complete by Jun 30th. I feel that USCIS will have a tough time answering
a) How USCIS used the numbers before the start of the quarter, even though they are not authorized to?
b) How USCIS approved some folks on July 1st , when the July VB is already effective?
c) lastly the poor communication between agencies and the grievances suffered by every one involved, if at all.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
Absolutely, Those who filed in June 2006 had a visa number available which were exhausted by the month of Aug 2006. I am not saying that there is a one to one match between availability of visa number and adjudication of visa number. To be more clear, DOS and USCIS might have took 30K applications when there were 20k visa numbers. I am totally aware of this. How ever, all these went unnoticed because there was not a deluge of applications like this and USCIS did not care much about the extra 10K, who will wait until they are available. It could also be possible that they were doing this so randomly like they have done right now, with out proper communication and have not hurt each other. But the deluge of applications sure did bothered USCIS and hence they worked over time to exhaust numbers. As we all know, there is no rule to say that if there are 20K visa numbers, stop accepting applications once you reach 20K, they have to honor the VB for that month even though they get 200k applications. Thats why they exhausted the number by July 1st and when they could not complete by Jun 30th. I feel that USCIS will have a tough time answering
a) How USCIS used the numbers before the start of the quarter, even though they are not authorized to?
b) How USCIS approved some folks on July 1st , when the July VB is already effective?
c) lastly the poor communication between agencies and the grievances suffered by every one involved, if at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment