bmoni
12-26 09:51 AM
I will be calling in.
wallpaper PEOPLE DANCING (click image to
gc_chahiye
07-20 03:49 PM
Can someone advise on this. My 6 yrs of H1 expires in Jan 2008. Employer says they will only apply 90 days prior to H1-b expiration.
They already applied my 485 and AP.
What should I be doing?
1. Can I apply EAD myself?
yes, once you have the I-485 receipt. You dont need anything from your employer for filing EAD.
2. will I get in trouble if I do not have EAD and my H1 expires?
status-wise you will be ok since your status will be 485-pending. However you will need to stop working if they have not applied for your H1 extension by the last day of your current H1 (ie. by Jan 2008). They can apply for your H1 extension even on the last day of your current H1s expiry and you can then continue working for upto 240 days after expiry of your current H1 while waiting for approval of that extension request. Filing 90 days in advance is ok, if you are paranoid ask them to do in premium processing when they file it (offering to pay the $1000) if that makes you more comfortable.
Not sure why you want an early H1 extension filing...
3. Can I move to new employer using AC21 without EAD?
yup. You can transfer H1 and invoke AC21. In fact that is recommended (try to maintain your H1 status while your 485 is pending so if you get a denial you atleast have some status to work out your next move.
They already applied my 485 and AP.
What should I be doing?
1. Can I apply EAD myself?
yes, once you have the I-485 receipt. You dont need anything from your employer for filing EAD.
2. will I get in trouble if I do not have EAD and my H1 expires?
status-wise you will be ok since your status will be 485-pending. However you will need to stop working if they have not applied for your H1 extension by the last day of your current H1 (ie. by Jan 2008). They can apply for your H1 extension even on the last day of your current H1s expiry and you can then continue working for upto 240 days after expiry of your current H1 while waiting for approval of that extension request. Filing 90 days in advance is ok, if you are paranoid ask them to do in premium processing when they file it (offering to pay the $1000) if that makes you more comfortable.
Not sure why you want an early H1 extension filing...
3. Can I move to new employer using AC21 without EAD?
yup. You can transfer H1 and invoke AC21. In fact that is recommended (try to maintain your H1 status while your 485 is pending so if you get a denial you atleast have some status to work out your next move.
rolrblade
07-20 01:26 PM
I sent in form G-325 for both me and my wife along with my I-485 instead of the G-325A as required on I-485 instructions by oversight. What do you guys recommend I do? Should I send in a new application or just send in the G-325A form with a letter stating the issue? Please help.
When did you file? How long has it been?
if you just recently filed, I would recommend that you wait for the Receipt notice of the 485 (at this stage they have not worked on your case yet) and then send the letter along with the correct form.
Atleast that way they can track it and put it where it is supposed to go. Right now, if you send it where are they going to find your form in 700K+ applications comming n and and you not even being in the system.
Consult with your attorney thugh.
Just my 2 cents.
When did you file? How long has it been?
if you just recently filed, I would recommend that you wait for the Receipt notice of the 485 (at this stage they have not worked on your case yet) and then send the letter along with the correct form.
Atleast that way they can track it and put it where it is supposed to go. Right now, if you send it where are they going to find your form in 700K+ applications comming n and and you not even being in the system.
Consult with your attorney thugh.
Just my 2 cents.
2011 Local people dancing amazingly
samrat_bhargava_vihari
06-25 03:42 PM
It looks like my lawyer has already mailed the application to USCIS. The priority dates becomes current only on July 1st.
What are my options here? Does anyone has faced such a situation?
Some people did same mistake for June buliten they filed in may and still they didn't get their applications back. Check with some good lawyer and file once again in first week of July. If you don't send them back by EOM and if dates get retrogress you will be in serious problem.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=86794&postcount=25
Check with shailesh what he did.
What are my options here? Does anyone has faced such a situation?
Some people did same mistake for June buliten they filed in may and still they didn't get their applications back. Check with some good lawyer and file once again in first week of July. If you don't send them back by EOM and if dates get retrogress you will be in serious problem.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=86794&postcount=25
Check with shailesh what he did.
more...
vallabhu
11-13 04:47 PM
I asked her if it is change of address they sent she is not sure but she said usually it is the card when Current Status: is "Document mailed to applicant."
She put in a service request for me and she some one is going to contact me in 30 business days.
She put in a service request for me and she some one is going to contact me in 30 business days.
kaisersose
06-02 03:24 PM
You have a valid point but in worst case scenario, can i use the EAD and handle the RFE at the time of citizen ship... is the RFE during approval of GC or during citizen ship ?
Here is how I see it,
1. You use your EAD and quit your employer.
2. Your H employer cancels your H-1 and therefore the H-4 is cancelled too.
3. When it is time for your wife to apply for AOS, she has show proof that she is legally in the US at that time.
4. But she is no longer in the US legally and so she cannot really apply.
I would not take this route. Instead I suggest you try to get her a different visa (h1, F1, etc) and make her status independent of yours. If not, then you will have to hold on to a H status until her PD becomes current.
Here is how I see it,
1. You use your EAD and quit your employer.
2. Your H employer cancels your H-1 and therefore the H-4 is cancelled too.
3. When it is time for your wife to apply for AOS, she has show proof that she is legally in the US at that time.
4. But she is no longer in the US legally and so she cannot really apply.
I would not take this route. Instead I suggest you try to get her a different visa (h1, F1, etc) and make her status independent of yours. If not, then you will have to hold on to a H status until her PD becomes current.
more...
onemorecame
08-21 04:14 PM
There were twobiometrics. One was with initial application (probably Nov/Dec 2005) and another was in May 2007 when the first one expired (FP is valid for 15 months).
are you in EB2?
are you in EB2?
2010 people dancing silhouette.
eb3_2004
11-09 12:57 PM
I finished this survey!!!
more...
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 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)
hair people dancing cartoon.
kondur_007
09-22 09:58 AM
I have a pending I-485 application (EB-3) and effective Oct 1, my PD will be current. My application has been pending for more than six months already so I will be covered by AC21. I never worked for my sponsoring employer but will be as soon as I get my GC.
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
Well, you have two options:
1. Use AC 21 (I am assuming your 140 is approved and 485 is filed more than 6 months ago) and move to another employer BEFORE the approval of GC. With this option, neither you nor your employer would have any obligation for the job after GC approval. Your AC 21 employer is now the "new permanent job" for you after GC approval.
2. If you have good terms with the employer, ask them to hire you for at least 1-2 months after GC approval and then "fire" you. This way you would be safe. (it was not your fault but the employer fired you). Also if the employer does not pay salary mentioned in LC, you can leave them giving that reason (save the pay stubs for evidence later on, if asked for).
3. If your employer simply do not offer you a job after the approval of GC, it still would not be yoru fault. In this scenario, likelyhood is that, you will be safe. However, this technically would be a sort of misrepresentation by the employer and on that grould USCIS can revoke your GC saying that "employer falsified the initial job offer and there was really no job ever for the position mentioned on LC". While this is a possibility it is a remote possibility.
I would suggest option 1,2 and 3 in that order as "desirability" of your situation.
Again I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can suggest as far as I know.
Good Luck.
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
Well, you have two options:
1. Use AC 21 (I am assuming your 140 is approved and 485 is filed more than 6 months ago) and move to another employer BEFORE the approval of GC. With this option, neither you nor your employer would have any obligation for the job after GC approval. Your AC 21 employer is now the "new permanent job" for you after GC approval.
2. If you have good terms with the employer, ask them to hire you for at least 1-2 months after GC approval and then "fire" you. This way you would be safe. (it was not your fault but the employer fired you). Also if the employer does not pay salary mentioned in LC, you can leave them giving that reason (save the pay stubs for evidence later on, if asked for).
3. If your employer simply do not offer you a job after the approval of GC, it still would not be yoru fault. In this scenario, likelyhood is that, you will be safe. However, this technically would be a sort of misrepresentation by the employer and on that grould USCIS can revoke your GC saying that "employer falsified the initial job offer and there was really no job ever for the position mentioned on LC". While this is a possibility it is a remote possibility.
I would suggest option 1,2 and 3 in that order as "desirability" of your situation.
Again I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can suggest as far as I know.
Good Luck.
more...
nixstor
07-08 03:33 PM
Why is he mentioning as East Indians instead of Immigration Voice members
Can't you see the Gandhi link? Gandhi is East Indian and thats why he might have associated it with East Indian community. Dont harp too much on What Mr Oh wants/thinks.
Can't you see the Gandhi link? Gandhi is East Indian and thats why he might have associated it with East Indian community. Dont harp too much on What Mr Oh wants/thinks.
hot people dancing cartoon.
chanduv23
06-29 09:34 PM
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
Well "interview" without PD becoming current is a part of "preadjudication" process. Thats why you see those denials, RFEs and interview notices.
Typically once preadjudication is done - it means the next thing is "wait for visa number". Once visa number is available a final review is done by a officer.
In other words "preadjudicated" means "approvable"
Well "interview" without PD becoming current is a part of "preadjudication" process. Thats why you see those denials, RFEs and interview notices.
Typically once preadjudication is done - it means the next thing is "wait for visa number". Once visa number is available a final review is done by a officer.
In other words "preadjudicated" means "approvable"
more...
house indonesian people dancing.
mrdelhiite
07-12 08:25 AM
You can start by making small money contributions to IV. also please tell all your friends to do the same. thanks
-M
-M
tattoo People dancing in the night
sledge_hammer
07-01 12:43 PM
I am in the same situation currently.
My company's attorneys believe that mine is not an AC21 case because I am going from Software Engineer (per PERM) to Lead Software Engineer, with substantial pay hike.
They are sending me papers for H-1B amendment and extension only (extension because my H-1B will expire soon).
Why is there a need to invoke AC21 in your case? Is there substantial change in responsibilities?
I am also in a simlar situation except that the job location is same but job position going to be Sr. Programmer analyst for the same employer who is sponsoring my GC and for whom i am working for last 6 + yrs.
According to our company attorney and HR, i am eligible for promotion using the AC-21 and they are preparing my AC-21 package to USCIS.
In the AC-21 letter to USCIS it is clearly mentioned that i will be using AC-21 provision of the immigration law to accept the new position for the same employer. HR also verified that this is a natural progression for my job position.
Anyways i would suggest please talk to your HR and company attorney as they would know the best course of action for you. Remember in the immigration world even if you think u r into similar situation with other person, it may not be true in all cases.
My company's attorneys believe that mine is not an AC21 case because I am going from Software Engineer (per PERM) to Lead Software Engineer, with substantial pay hike.
They are sending me papers for H-1B amendment and extension only (extension because my H-1B will expire soon).
Why is there a need to invoke AC21 in your case? Is there substantial change in responsibilities?
I am also in a simlar situation except that the job location is same but job position going to be Sr. Programmer analyst for the same employer who is sponsoring my GC and for whom i am working for last 6 + yrs.
According to our company attorney and HR, i am eligible for promotion using the AC-21 and they are preparing my AC-21 package to USCIS.
In the AC-21 letter to USCIS it is clearly mentioned that i will be using AC-21 provision of the immigration law to accept the new position for the same employer. HR also verified that this is a natural progression for my job position.
Anyways i would suggest please talk to your HR and company attorney as they would know the best course of action for you. Remember in the immigration world even if you think u r into similar situation with other person, it may not be true in all cases.
more...
pictures people dancing silhouette.
ArunAntonio
02-20 07:13 PM
I used the data from this webite to apply for FOIA for I-140
Can you please provide more info on the process of how get a copy of the I140 if the employer is unwilling to provide a copy.
Can you please provide more info on the process of how get a copy of the I140 if the employer is unwilling to provide a copy.
dresses people dancing in rain.
conchshell
08-13 02:48 PM
who is vld rao?
He is our cheer leader for monthly visa bulletins. You have posted 116 messages and you don't know Mr Rao?? High time for you to start reading other's posts, other than just writing yours :D
He is our cheer leader for monthly visa bulletins. You have posted 116 messages and you don't know Mr Rao?? High time for you to start reading other's posts, other than just writing yours :D
more...
makeup people dancing silhouette. tap
ajju
03-06 12:42 PM
My Company is switching me to EAD and will cancel my H1. Saying that H1 is more expensive to maintain... They'll pay for my EAD renewal also... Anyway don't have a choice here unless I switch...
My question is that my lawyer told that Iam allowed to work up to 120 days post EAD expiry if EAD renewal is delayed... They'll file 90 days before current EAD expiry..
Does this sound okay.. Anyone heard anywhere that its allowed to work upto 120 days of EAD expiry pending EAD renewal??
My question is that my lawyer told that Iam allowed to work up to 120 days post EAD expiry if EAD renewal is delayed... They'll file 90 days before current EAD expiry..
Does this sound okay.. Anyone heard anywhere that its allowed to work upto 120 days of EAD expiry pending EAD renewal??
girlfriend People Dancing In Nightclub
roseball
10-07 06:30 PM
I would really love to hear comments from ppl who can relate to this possibly with some first-hand experience in going through this stage!
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
The main issue with your PERM is to justify why your job required EB-2 qualifications as a requirement while others in your company with similar job profiles were only eligible under EB-3. That should be your main focus in preparing any documentation incase your case gets audited.
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
The main issue with your PERM is to justify why your job required EB-2 qualifications as a requirement while others in your company with similar job profiles were only eligible under EB-3. That should be your main focus in preparing any documentation incase your case gets audited.
hairstyles PEOPLE DANCING IN NIGHT-CLUB
suryamanikanth
04-17 02:23 PM
OP already mentioned the change was expected in the NOC list [On-Demand occupation list of Alberta]. Nobody told it would be closed after April 15. Did you see all the postings here before blaming others?
hey dude there's nothing in the url u posted once go to the website and click the the pressure list url.that is the actual Noc codes that are active.Today morning when i spoke to the immigraton officer in alberta he was the one who told me ok.
hey dude there's nothing in the url u posted once go to the website and click the the pressure list url.that is the actual Noc codes that are active.Today morning when i spoke to the immigraton officer in alberta he was the one who told me ok.
ksita48
07-24 10:53 AM
BOLTI BUND (MAY BE IT IS AN EB3 ISSUE???).
Surprised to see NO comments from any corner (EB's, Admins Legals or even Illegals).
Also NO reply from the "thebestoptimizer@gmail.com" to my personal mail sent Yesterday.
Surprised to see NO comments from any corner (EB's, Admins Legals or even Illegals).
Also NO reply from the "thebestoptimizer@gmail.com" to my personal mail sent Yesterday.
Soul
06-12 07:32 PM
lol you really want it? :P
No comments:
Post a Comment