satya1234
03-27 05:35 PM
Thanks for the reply.
Looks like i would have mis communicated. I am sorry for that.
I94 rejected which is applied by my New Employer NOT the one which is applied by current employer (applied for extension) . So whatt i was told is "I can stay and work with my old employer for 240 days " . So currently am working on my current employer extension .
Still it is not legal to stay here..??
Looks like i would have mis communicated. I am sorry for that.
I94 rejected which is applied by my New Employer NOT the one which is applied by current employer (applied for extension) . So whatt i was told is "I can stay and work with my old employer for 240 days " . So currently am working on my current employer extension .
Still it is not legal to stay here..??
wallpaper I pray to God everyday,
srkamath
07-16 09:09 AM
IF the position needs Master's+ and applicant has a MS+ degree, then USCIS automatically classifies the I-140 as EB2, as the law clearly states this.
If the position requires (BS+5yrs)+ and the applicant meets this, it will NOT automatically be put into EB2. Employer must ask for the "exceptional ability" provision of the law to get EB2.
If the position requires (BS+5yrs)+ and the applicant meets this, it will NOT automatically be put into EB2. Employer must ask for the "exceptional ability" provision of the law to get EB2.
americandesi
04-06 01:31 PM
Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As suggested by "Optimystic", any time between 6 to 12 months should be ok.
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As suggested by "Optimystic", any time between 6 to 12 months should be ok.
2011 tagged justin bieber next 2
neelu
02-09 11:27 PM
Hi
My status has changed recently from H4 to H1. I haven't got my H1 visa stamped in passport. I need to travel to India due to family emergency.
1. Can I get an emergency appointment?
2. Would I have any problem related to transit visa if travelling via Amsterdam or Frankfurt?
3. How long does it take to recieve the passport after stamping?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
TEKNMEK
1. You should be able to get an emergency appointment. Check out the following links:
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/appointments2.html
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2. My mother recently flew via Frankfurt. She did not require a transit VISA.
3. If you get VISA stamped in India, it usually is given to you the same evening (at least in Chennai).
Hope this helps. Wish you good Luck!
My status has changed recently from H4 to H1. I haven't got my H1 visa stamped in passport. I need to travel to India due to family emergency.
1. Can I get an emergency appointment?
2. Would I have any problem related to transit visa if travelling via Amsterdam or Frankfurt?
3. How long does it take to recieve the passport after stamping?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
TEKNMEK
1. You should be able to get an emergency appointment. Check out the following links:
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/appointments2.html
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2. My mother recently flew via Frankfurt. She did not require a transit VISA.
3. If you get VISA stamped in India, it usually is given to you the same evening (at least in Chennai).
Hope this helps. Wish you good Luck!
more...
Cataphract
02-17 09:34 AM
After a very enthusiastic and motivating conference call the volunteers have decided to meet in person to network and strategize and agree on the next steps to tackle the pressing issues.
The location is a McDonalds in Tysons Corner, VA
The exact address is
8111 LEESBURG PIKE
VIENNA, VA 22181
We plan to meet on this Sunday, February 19th at Noon.
Everyone from VA/DC/MD is welcome to join us, this way we will get to know each other better and can work out a plan faster.
The location is a McDonalds in Tysons Corner, VA
The exact address is
8111 LEESBURG PIKE
VIENNA, VA 22181
We plan to meet on this Sunday, February 19th at Noon.
Everyone from VA/DC/MD is welcome to join us, this way we will get to know each other better and can work out a plan faster.
usdreams
05-25 12:13 PM
Hi,
I am little scared, I have taken an Infopass appointment for this friday at my local office, as my PD is current for EB2 - May, and still didn't get any status update or GCs.
Is it risky or inviting a risk by taking infopass apt. ?
Do you think I should have waited ?
please reply if anyone have any idea.
Thank you,
I am little scared, I have taken an Infopass appointment for this friday at my local office, as my PD is current for EB2 - May, and still didn't get any status update or GCs.
Is it risky or inviting a risk by taking infopass apt. ?
Do you think I should have waited ?
please reply if anyone have any idea.
Thank you,
more...
chanduv23
08-05 10:56 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2010 About Justin Bieber
jscris
July 15th, 2004, 12:58 PM
I love my Better Beamer. :) I think my last posted shot of the brightly sunlit finch wouldn't have been usable without the fill flash. Can you handhold that 300 2.8?
Janet
Janet
more...
karanp25
07-21 05:08 PM
I assume he can use the AP after October 2008 for his travel--correct?
This is trouble.
They might have issued AP to you, lost somewhere in mail. Now they renewed starting expiry of first one.
On this AP - a big NO.
I hope someone familiar with this type of situation - is it possible to request USCIS by taking infopass?
This is trouble.
They might have issued AP to you, lost somewhere in mail. Now they renewed starting expiry of first one.
On this AP - a big NO.
I hope someone familiar with this type of situation - is it possible to request USCIS by taking infopass?
hair i pray to God everyday,
dpp
01-07 08:25 PM
B. Provisions in Cases of Revocation of the Approved Form I-140
Subject: Guidance for Processing Form I-485 in Accordance with Section 106(c) of AC21
As discussed above, if an alien is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 and is also the beneficiary of a Form I-485 that has been pending 180 days or longer, then the approved Form I-140 remains valid with respect to a new offer of employment under the flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
Subject: Guidance for Processing Form I-485 in Accordance with Section 106(c) of AC21
As discussed above, if an alien is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 and is also the beneficiary of a Form I-485 that has been pending 180 days or longer, then the approved Form I-140 remains valid with respect to a new offer of employment under the flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
more...
EkAurAaya
05-11 08:23 AM
The point-based system will not be good for this country. Many other countries have point-based systems such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc. The most who immigrate in these countries on the point-based system don't have jobs. Only those should be allowed to immigrate who has the job offer here. All the immigration fees and expenses to immigrate should be borne by the employer offering the job.
Not only this, the people who promote this point-based system are interested in shutting off immgration based on family unification. Why you would not like your own family members to be here, when they all have been allowed until this day to bring their own family members from European countries.
No ones looking to shut off family immigration, it will never ever happen, they are only discussing "preferences" and for the most part its a no brainer that the qualified folks should get preference for the betterment of this country and to compete globally (if you view it from an american's point of view).
I don't know all the pros and cons but I don't see anything wrong in it.
Not only this, the people who promote this point-based system are interested in shutting off immgration based on family unification. Why you would not like your own family members to be here, when they all have been allowed until this day to bring their own family members from European countries.
No ones looking to shut off family immigration, it will never ever happen, they are only discussing "preferences" and for the most part its a no brainer that the qualified folks should get preference for the betterment of this country and to compete globally (if you view it from an american's point of view).
I don't know all the pros and cons but I don't see anything wrong in it.
hot justin bieber singing pray.
plassey
08-21 10:38 AM
I am happy for you but...
What the &^%$? I am a JUly 2nd filer but still no action..
This is to inform our community that July 19th filer check - 485, EAD, AP has got encashed. Please delete the thread if you would like to. It is only to aid people in this forum to track the dates.
EB-3 India
Nebraska
July 19th filer- Checks Cashed
no other updates
What the &^%$? I am a JUly 2nd filer but still no action..
This is to inform our community that July 19th filer check - 485, EAD, AP has got encashed. Please delete the thread if you would like to. It is only to aid people in this forum to track the dates.
EB-3 India
Nebraska
July 19th filer- Checks Cashed
no other updates
more...
house Justin Bieber pray in Hebrew a
arunmohan
07-13 02:39 AM
I am in if IV decide to file a law suit. I will contribute.
tattoo Teen singing sensation Justin
GC_1000Watt
12-15 11:42 AM
Answers in Red Ink Below....
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
Nope. Your old H1 has already expired. So it has to be altogether a new H1 B application even though the old one is in appeal.
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
I don't know the answer to this. According to my knowledge, once you apply for new H1 B & its approved, the old one is of no use even though the the appeal is in your favor. But its better check with the lawyer on this & if you get the answer to this one, pls. do let me know too.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. All The best ....
Thanks again. I will let you know but I believe since the old I-94 is already expired the extension will be given without I-94.
Also do you know if the same company (which has filed for my H1B extension and got denial) can file new H1B for me?
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
Nope. Your old H1 has already expired. So it has to be altogether a new H1 B application even though the old one is in appeal.
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
I don't know the answer to this. According to my knowledge, once you apply for new H1 B & its approved, the old one is of no use even though the the appeal is in your favor. But its better check with the lawyer on this & if you get the answer to this one, pls. do let me know too.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. All The best ....
Thanks again. I will let you know but I believe since the old I-94 is already expired the extension will be given without I-94.
Also do you know if the same company (which has filed for my H1B extension and got denial) can file new H1B for me?
more...
pictures I close my eyes and pray
lahiribaba
07-06 01:37 AM
What makes you think so?
More Bulls**t
More Bulls**t
dresses I close my eyes and pray
sathish_gopalan
10-18 12:41 PM
You could send payment to
donations@immigrationvoice.org paypal account for any
amount that they would like to contribute. If you want to contribute 50$, then this is a good option
This would require for them to have paypal account.
donations@immigrationvoice.org paypal account for any
amount that they would like to contribute. If you want to contribute 50$, then this is a good option
This would require for them to have paypal account.
more...
makeup Justin Bieber claims that
vinzak
04-26 04:25 PM
from what a friend told me very recently, if you've booked through lufthansa, 2 bags. But sometimes u may have booked thru another airline, in that case it maybe 1 bag.
eg. if ur going from dallas to mumbai, and flying AA to frankfurt and booked thru AA then it'll be 1 bag. but if ur flying lufthansa from dallas to frankfurt it'll be 2 bags. this is my understanding. Please don't hold me to it.
eg. if ur going from dallas to mumbai, and flying AA to frankfurt and booked thru AA then it'll be 1 bag. but if ur flying lufthansa from dallas to frankfurt it'll be 2 bags. this is my understanding. Please don't hold me to it.
girlfriend Justin-ieber-pray-3-justin-
buehler
06-03 08:52 AM
I posted the list sometime ago. Do a search for "list of stem disciplines" on the forums.
akred,
The list that you had posted earlier - http://online.onetcenter.org/find/stem/title?t=0&g=Go are the Occupations that might require a STEM Education. What Bogdan wants here, is the list of degrees considered as STEM. There is a big difference between the two.
akred,
The list that you had posted earlier - http://online.onetcenter.org/find/stem/title?t=0&g=Go are the Occupations that might require a STEM Education. What Bogdan wants here, is the list of degrees considered as STEM. There is a big difference between the two.
hairstyles I Pray. By JUSTIN BIEBER
kramesh_babu
08-20 03:58 PM
once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.
I fully agree.
I fully agree.
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QZpVppv4FTs/S4SAxLd4wPI/AAAAAAAAAEo/E-XH7jwIW9c/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QZpVppv4FTs/S4SAxLd4wPI/AAAAAAAAAEo/E-XH7jwIW9c/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QZpVppv4FTs/S4SAxLd4wPI/AAAAAAAAAEo/E-XH7jwIW9c/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QZpVppv4FTs/S4SAxLd4wPI/AAAAAAAAAEo/E-XH7jwIW9c/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
maverick_iv
11-27 02:03 PM
There were two ways to substitute a labor. One by applying for an I-140 with an approved labor certification. Another way was to substitute the beneficiary name in a pending labor certification application. Maybe thats what the company lawyer did.
For the latter, I am not sure if one needs the beneficiary's signature to do so. One way to check is to ask the company's lawyer for the case number and you could check the status. If the labor is pending with one of the BECs you could request for a screenshot of the case status and that would have the beneficiary's name. But since the BECs are being phased out, I am not sure if they still honor status requests.
My friend is in India during the July 15 period. He is being told by the consulting firm that they have applied for Labor Substitution. All I know about labor substitution is that you have to apply for I 140 along with the approved labor sheet that company gets from DOL. The company Lawyer kept saying that they have sent it to DOL for substitution. I just want to clarify that there is no other way of substitution other than applying I 140.
Thank you
For the latter, I am not sure if one needs the beneficiary's signature to do so. One way to check is to ask the company's lawyer for the case number and you could check the status. If the labor is pending with one of the BECs you could request for a screenshot of the case status and that would have the beneficiary's name. But since the BECs are being phased out, I am not sure if they still honor status requests.
My friend is in India during the July 15 period. He is being told by the consulting firm that they have applied for Labor Substitution. All I know about labor substitution is that you have to apply for I 140 along with the approved labor sheet that company gets from DOL. The company Lawyer kept saying that they have sent it to DOL for substitution. I just want to clarify that there is no other way of substitution other than applying I 140.
Thank you
No comments:
Post a Comment