sunray
10-07 03:57 PM
hi,
I am in a similar situation.
I have a valid visa stamped on my passport till the sept 2010. And I moved to company B after I was let go by company A. The I 797 approval for company B I got did not have the I 94.
I got the approval yesterday with a letter saying that my extension of stay has been rejected.
The letter also said that I was staying in the country after my H1B with company A has been revoked, which is against the law. It is also mentioned that my I 129 has been mailed to the consulate of my choice(which is in India).
Does he mean that I need to attend the consulate to get my I 129? If so, has the visa stamp been revoked?
Is it ok if I attend the consulate in neighbouring countries like mexico or bahamas instead of going to India?
If the Visa stamping has not been revoked, can I just cross the border for an I 94 card?
Any advice is valuable to me.
Thanks in advance.
I am in a similar situation.
I have a valid visa stamped on my passport till the sept 2010. And I moved to company B after I was let go by company A. The I 797 approval for company B I got did not have the I 94.
I got the approval yesterday with a letter saying that my extension of stay has been rejected.
The letter also said that I was staying in the country after my H1B with company A has been revoked, which is against the law. It is also mentioned that my I 129 has been mailed to the consulate of my choice(which is in India).
Does he mean that I need to attend the consulate to get my I 129? If so, has the visa stamp been revoked?
Is it ok if I attend the consulate in neighbouring countries like mexico or bahamas instead of going to India?
If the Visa stamping has not been revoked, can I just cross the border for an I 94 card?
Any advice is valuable to me.
Thanks in advance.
wallpaper simple resume samples for
posmd
04-07 09:07 PM
I am 100 percent of this view. IV core members should review this with QGA.
We are already hearing that the whitehouse is pushing this thing to conference even without full senate approval, perhaps they know something we do not, that in some form or fashion something is going to pass the senate.
Sensenbrenner is not a guy against legal immigration per se. Some of the core members know this from the S1932 experience. There was a guy by the name of "superman" who some of the core members are aware of, who lives in sensenbrenner's district and tried his best during conference in that budget bill.
We need to involve all those forces so that he does not resist our just and fair provisions. He must be made to realise that to have a clear moral argument about the illegals he must clearly support the legal immigrant provisions.
We are already hearing that the whitehouse is pushing this thing to conference even without full senate approval, perhaps they know something we do not, that in some form or fashion something is going to pass the senate.
Sensenbrenner is not a guy against legal immigration per se. Some of the core members know this from the S1932 experience. There was a guy by the name of "superman" who some of the core members are aware of, who lives in sensenbrenner's district and tried his best during conference in that budget bill.
We need to involve all those forces so that he does not resist our just and fair provisions. He must be made to realise that to have a clear moral argument about the illegals he must clearly support the legal immigrant provisions.
jonty_11
02-12 02:09 PM
citizenry does not matter...but country of Birth does..If she was Born in SA..then u can change ur chargability.
2011 example resume formats,
HRPRO
01-18 09:30 AM
H-1B is the responsibility of the employer but it is slightly tricky. If the employee is being paid more than the minimum wage quoted, then he/she can be made liable to pay back the full amount. But still attorney fees and other associated costs can be collected back from the employee.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
more...
GCAmigo
01-02 03:20 PM
>>>You can travel on your current stamped H4. In fact, I'm not sure if you can even get the new H4 stamped now because they say that you can get the new approval stamped only 10 days prior to the expiry of the current one. In other words, you could get the new approval stamped after 6/10/2007 but I do not know how strictly they enfore that.
I got stamped in July-06 while my existing stamp was valid up to 12/31/06..
I got stamped in July-06 while my existing stamp was valid up to 12/31/06..
v7461558
07-13 12:21 PM
A bunch of suits on a Saturday afternoon in downtown San Jose will sure look strange. Silicon Valley dress code is not the same as New York, or LA for that matter. Slacks and a shirt (maybe a tie) seem to do it even at venture capitalist meetings with company founders.
more...
glus
03-19 11:29 AM
If you have left your I-140 company, that I-140 is dead. No wonder you have not heard back. It's not pending, it's cancelled. I-140 is employer based and therefore if USCIS said they were not satisfied with place of work, which reads: not enough income for the company to be able to pay you the salary declared in the I140 app. If you did not reply to their show-cause within the time frame stated, your I-140 application is deemed abandoned.
This is not true. I140 can be approved even after one leaves the company. I140 is only a "check" that the person i qualified and a company able to pay a "FUTURE OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT." Please do not post untrue statements unless your are absolutely sure. He can work in CA and have a 140 approved in NY, and move to NY when his Priority Date becomes current.
I140 is only dead if a company request to withdraw I140 petition before it is approved. If his I140 is "pending" it is not dead.
This is not true. I140 can be approved even after one leaves the company. I140 is only a "check" that the person i qualified and a company able to pay a "FUTURE OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT." Please do not post untrue statements unless your are absolutely sure. He can work in CA and have a 140 approved in NY, and move to NY when his Priority Date becomes current.
I140 is only dead if a company request to withdraw I140 petition before it is approved. If his I140 is "pending" it is not dead.
2010 engineering resume samples for
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
gcpain
06-25 03:09 PM
You guys are great. Guys like you are making this world better place to live. I wish you both good luck.
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
hair best resume format for freshers. mba resume format for freshers
immilaw
12-08 08:48 AM
Called Senator Tom Price - 770-565-4990. Was asked the Bill #.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
more...
Appu
04-08 05:56 PM
I am not sure why you think Sensenbrenner will be receptive to the problems of legal immigrants. Here's a summary of the legal immigration clauses he put in HR4437 - they are not there by accident:
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SenseKingGlance.pdf
Make it harder for legal permanent residents to become citizens. Legal immigrants who have waited
patiently for the chance to become U.S. citizens may have their dreams dashed by this bill. It would:
� Allow government bureaucrats to deny citizenship to any legal permanent resident on a whim;
� Permit the government to keep the reason for that denial a secret;
� Eliminate a judge�s power to override a mistake DHS made in denying citizenship; and
� Change the rules of the game so that long-time legal permanent residents can be barred from citizenship
and deported, even if they were never convicted of a crime or it was a minor offense from decades ago.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SenseKingGlance.pdf
Make it harder for legal permanent residents to become citizens. Legal immigrants who have waited
patiently for the chance to become U.S. citizens may have their dreams dashed by this bill. It would:
� Allow government bureaucrats to deny citizenship to any legal permanent resident on a whim;
� Permit the government to keep the reason for that denial a secret;
� Eliminate a judge�s power to override a mistake DHS made in denying citizenship; and
� Change the rules of the game so that long-time legal permanent residents can be barred from citizenship
and deported, even if they were never convicted of a crime or it was a minor offense from decades ago.
hot All Free Sample Resume amp;
ivar
02-07 09:51 AM
Dear "ivar" congratulations on getting greened! I humbly request you to be with us till you can :D
gc_peshwa, SGP
I am used to visiting IV everyday so i don't think i will stop that and i will also be donating for few months from now.
gc_peshwa, SGP
I am used to visiting IV everyday so i don't think i will stop that and i will also be donating for few months from now.
more...
house cv format for freshers.
retropain
08-25 02:02 PM
the media is going to be busy covering the elections till Nov first week or two. so you're not going to get much media coverage.
idea is not bad if it can be implemented correctly, with employer support of course.
idea is not bad if it can be implemented correctly, with employer support of course.
tattoo CV Template • Curriculum Vitae
cooler
07-01 01:29 PM
My friend joined new company from Project Manager he got a job on Associate Director. When GC was filed he was developer :-)
You can do anything as long as you don't get caught. In this case. If he moved from a developer to a PM. That in itself is a significant change in job description.
I have heard one of the lawyers say that a developer to a PM is a natural job progression. That does not make sense at all. You go from debugging your code to debugging MS-Project. The associate Director post involves something entirely different.
IF the company is willing to go along and provide the letter with the same designation as in LC, then there is nothing to worry else you would have a sword hanging till the case is adjucated.
You can do anything as long as you don't get caught. In this case. If he moved from a developer to a PM. That in itself is a significant change in job description.
I have heard one of the lawyers say that a developer to a PM is a natural job progression. That does not make sense at all. You go from debugging your code to debugging MS-Project. The associate Director post involves something entirely different.
IF the company is willing to go along and provide the letter with the same designation as in LC, then there is nothing to worry else you would have a sword hanging till the case is adjucated.
more...
pictures COVER LETTER FOR RESUME FORMAT
Berkeleybee
04-07 09:03 PM
About the appeasability of Sensenbrenner check out :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7445&postcount=168
My favorite bit is the one in where the article says about Sensenbrenner
"Senate Democrats were also afraid that a half-baked Senate measure would be ripped apart in conference by Jim Sensenbrenner, the House negotiator who in past conferences has eaten senators for breakfast and cleaned his teeth with their bones."
I very much doubt that he will be swayed by faxes. ;-)
best,
Berkeleybee
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7445&postcount=168
My favorite bit is the one in where the article says about Sensenbrenner
"Senate Democrats were also afraid that a half-baked Senate measure would be ripped apart in conference by Jim Sensenbrenner, the House negotiator who in past conferences has eaten senators for breakfast and cleaned his teeth with their bones."
I very much doubt that he will be swayed by faxes. ;-)
best,
Berkeleybee
dresses student resume samples.
whiteStallion
02-03 04:37 PM
Congratulations on being greened !
more...
makeup Want to improve resume format
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
girlfriend Want to improve resume format
canmt
10-19 01:25 PM
The guideline issued by the Director of USCIS to field officers to interpret AC 21 does not take into consideration the geographic location of the new employer.
I cannot say how USCIS will interpret AC 21 cases where the salary is more or less than prevailing wages specified in labor certification but USCIS will issue a request for evidence to get a letter from your new employer to state that your terms and conditions of approved labor certification continue to exist.
This could mean the new employer has no obligation to pay you as per your labor certification but once the green card is approved he would pay the money mentioned in the labor certification. No one can enforce this since both you and employer will look for bottom line profits.
If you have an offer with same or more money than the privileging wage determination in your approved labor certification you should be good but I don’t know how USCIS will interpret the AC 21 where geographic location of the employer is different. For example if the labor is certified in NYC with 120k and I take up 100k job at Raleigh more than prevailing wage for that location and currently i'm paid 75k till I get my green card as employer is not obligated to pay the salary as per wage determination in NYC.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card chase.
I cannot say how USCIS will interpret AC 21 cases where the salary is more or less than prevailing wages specified in labor certification but USCIS will issue a request for evidence to get a letter from your new employer to state that your terms and conditions of approved labor certification continue to exist.
This could mean the new employer has no obligation to pay you as per your labor certification but once the green card is approved he would pay the money mentioned in the labor certification. No one can enforce this since both you and employer will look for bottom line profits.
If you have an offer with same or more money than the privileging wage determination in your approved labor certification you should be good but I don’t know how USCIS will interpret the AC 21 where geographic location of the employer is different. For example if the labor is certified in NYC with 120k and I take up 100k job at Raleigh more than prevailing wage for that location and currently i'm paid 75k till I get my green card as employer is not obligated to pay the salary as per wage determination in NYC.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card chase.
hairstyles best cv format for freshers.
ps57002
01-30 04:49 PM
oops wrong post
immiguy
07-20 04:35 PM
Same question. My friend is pregnant and wants to deliver the baby in India. They have filed for AoS now. Howevr they are not sure how to bring ther baby in if they deliver in India.
belmontboy
04-10 03:30 PM
source?
No comments:
Post a Comment