saileshdude
07-21 06:41 PM
In rare cases RFE has been issued. My doc also wrote that I need to follow-up with my PCP for INH treatment on my medical form. I visited my PCP and they sent me to a Infectious Disease specialist. The ID specialist said that there is no urgency for treatment although it is recommended to have the treatment. But said I can my take my own time to think if I need to go through the treatment.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
wallpaper food groups. The groups are.
dilbert_cal
07-08 02:19 PM
The folks who strongly feel that IV should be mentioned should write an email to OH and ask him to change the wording to include IV in it.
On a positive note, there is extra publicity for the flower campaign. On a flip side, if IV was linked to this post, we would had some more people flow into this website and possible new members and campaigners.
Finally, as to why he didnt put IV name - being an active reader the past few days of these posts, I've my reasons to understand the possible reasons but since this thread isnt about the why or why not - I'd like to keep this thread to the point of send flower campaign and how we can make it more effective.
Lets send emails to him and of course, in a nicely worded request to include IV and most importantly a link to IV on his website.
The above is my own personal opinion and you have a right to agree/disagree with the same. In either case, I'd expect you to reply back in a civilized tone and refrain from any personal and/or vilification campaigns.
On a positive note, there is extra publicity for the flower campaign. On a flip side, if IV was linked to this post, we would had some more people flow into this website and possible new members and campaigners.
Finally, as to why he didnt put IV name - being an active reader the past few days of these posts, I've my reasons to understand the possible reasons but since this thread isnt about the why or why not - I'd like to keep this thread to the point of send flower campaign and how we can make it more effective.
Lets send emails to him and of course, in a nicely worded request to include IV and most importantly a link to IV on his website.
The above is my own personal opinion and you have a right to agree/disagree with the same. In either case, I'd expect you to reply back in a civilized tone and refrain from any personal and/or vilification campaigns.
senthil1
06-11 05:35 PM
There may be two observations in this.
1. They may try to bring CIR one more time and pass in Senate or
2.They will make alive CIR talks till this year end. This will make sure that other piece meal bills like Skil, Agricultural jobs bill will not be brought for debate till CIR is alive
Second case is the best bet for numbersusa, alipac etc.
1. They may try to bring CIR one more time and pass in Senate or
2.They will make alive CIR talks till this year end. This will make sure that other piece meal bills like Skil, Agricultural jobs bill will not be brought for debate till CIR is alive
Second case is the best bet for numbersusa, alipac etc.
2011 Food Pyramid. With your braces
![food groups pyramid. [edit] The Community and](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sUQ8FPwpikPPVTaTCoBO86mtKsd_trWX8uaSEXY3R0TPsFf-I_1HFE7_oFtjg6SU6_dkO7940YVmS4PGlAkMQZQis4GW2MqlK9h0wiKpEw2FiahsX0VNbXJFG0oTOzKyEuOnNeht5wFNYaQu6ugLuYjOIl777hU_l29axiOzosSyZmyb-AlaHOEN3s6CqyjeYHjs0=s0-d "[edit] The Community and")
desi485
02-01 12:19 PM
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
Congratulations! Don't forget to check this Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/US_Life_After_GC) for things to do now....
Wish you good luck, and very happy for you. I wish all others good luck too.:)
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
Congratulations! Don't forget to check this Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/US_Life_After_GC) for things to do now....
Wish you good luck, and very happy for you. I wish all others good luck too.:)
more...
kirupa
11-24 04:45 PM
On the home page I see 3 Flash and 3 SL-based tutorials that were added recently. Sounds really biased to me.
I have no interest in fragmenting the site by covering new topics that are less designer focused and more for developers. If you want to submit a tutorial, make sure it is Flash CS4 or Expression Blend (WPF / SL) related. Otherwise, I will more than likely turn it down.
:nerd:
I have no interest in fragmenting the site by covering new topics that are less designer focused and more for developers. If you want to submit a tutorial, make sure it is Flash CS4 or Expression Blend (WPF / SL) related. Otherwise, I will more than likely turn it down.
:nerd:
Blog Feeds
01-27 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)
more...
prashantkh
08-23 02:30 PM
in EB3, EB2 and EB1
Not Enough :rolleyes:
Not Enough :rolleyes:
2010 Each group
webm
10-15 12:38 PM
I agree with you!!
GC approval is always unknown even when Priority Date current and they club with diff criterias...:( fully a crazy system..
Just a positive hope and moving further as a daily routine..:)
--------------------
PD EB3-I:Oct,2001
GC approval is always unknown even when Priority Date current and they club with diff criterias...:( fully a crazy system..
Just a positive hope and moving further as a daily routine..:)
--------------------
PD EB3-I:Oct,2001
more...
cdeneo
04-02 10:12 PM
Related question:
You get on the EAD track and take up a contract offer. Now as I understand it, AC21 will not apply to the contract offer and the contracting employer will not give a letter stating to continue the GC process since you are on contract. If the original sponsoring employer revokes the I-140 petition (I-140 approved and 180 days have passed post 485 submission), this would basically cause a NOID and the only way to not have the 485 filing denied would be to reply to the NOID with information of a full time offer in a same or similar job and the new employer willing to continue the GC process - is this accurate?
Again, this is merely assuming that I-140 is revoked by the employer who had started the GC process once the employee leaves and takes up another job on contract using EAD. This would mean that there is risk in this scenario (where the I-140 petition is revoked) to take up employment on contract.
Would like to hear from others of what they think about this?
The deal is: GC application is for a future job offer. That means, the company that files for your GC tells the USCIS that they will employ you in the xyz position once you get the green card.
According to the law, you are not required to have worked for that employer at all. Therefore, yes, you can get an employment letter from any employer (180 days after filing I-485), as long as the offer is bonafide, the job is full time & permanent, and the job duties & occupation is similar to the one mentioned in your labor certification.
Technically, you can work for a company like TekSystems on EAD, and when time comes, provide USCIS with a bonafide employment letter from any company that wants to hire you when you get the GC.
Now, some people have raised concerns over the question of "intent". How do you reinforce the fact that you indeed intend to join the new employer when you get the GC? For this reason, when people switch jobs using AC21, they generally go to work for a company that will give them the employement letter.
Ofcourse, the above discussion is in light of what we know today. The USCIS is working on modifying some of the provisions, so things may change a bit in the near future.
Ams
You get on the EAD track and take up a contract offer. Now as I understand it, AC21 will not apply to the contract offer and the contracting employer will not give a letter stating to continue the GC process since you are on contract. If the original sponsoring employer revokes the I-140 petition (I-140 approved and 180 days have passed post 485 submission), this would basically cause a NOID and the only way to not have the 485 filing denied would be to reply to the NOID with information of a full time offer in a same or similar job and the new employer willing to continue the GC process - is this accurate?
Again, this is merely assuming that I-140 is revoked by the employer who had started the GC process once the employee leaves and takes up another job on contract using EAD. This would mean that there is risk in this scenario (where the I-140 petition is revoked) to take up employment on contract.
Would like to hear from others of what they think about this?
The deal is: GC application is for a future job offer. That means, the company that files for your GC tells the USCIS that they will employ you in the xyz position once you get the green card.
According to the law, you are not required to have worked for that employer at all. Therefore, yes, you can get an employment letter from any employer (180 days after filing I-485), as long as the offer is bonafide, the job is full time & permanent, and the job duties & occupation is similar to the one mentioned in your labor certification.
Technically, you can work for a company like TekSystems on EAD, and when time comes, provide USCIS with a bonafide employment letter from any company that wants to hire you when you get the GC.
Now, some people have raised concerns over the question of "intent". How do you reinforce the fact that you indeed intend to join the new employer when you get the GC? For this reason, when people switch jobs using AC21, they generally go to work for a company that will give them the employement letter.
Ofcourse, the above discussion is in light of what we know today. The USCIS is working on modifying some of the provisions, so things may change a bit in the near future.
Ams
hair [edit] The Community and
Mount Soche
09-04 10:23 PM
Don't know much about how long medical tests are valid for but for sure the test has changed. I medical took a test last year for the employer sponsored green card and just took another medical test in August for another green card petition and my doctor told me that they're much stricter with the TB section.
I saw the form and it is totally different. They're asking for more detail.
I had to take another vaccine, which wasn't required last year.
Folks,
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
I saw the form and it is totally different. They're asking for more detail.
I had to take another vaccine, which wasn't required last year.
Folks,
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
more...
enver
06-13 04:00 PM
Im from Turkey.
hot Food Pyramid
FinalGC
05-10 02:49 PM
ICICI cheats you on the conversion rate. Try simply money gram from walmart
more...
house food pyramid
LostInGCProcess
09-19 05:12 PM
as I was not getting a corp to corp job for more than a year.I desperately need to work.now I am on a project for 3 months and it will end soon also.but this company wants to hire me full time. thats why I want to join them with EAD and when my h1b approves I will get it stamped and reenter..
You can continue to work with the company from the day they apply for your H1(of from the day you get the receipt of h1 application)....you don't have to wait till you get an approved H1.
You can continue to work with the company from the day they apply for your H1(of from the day you get the receipt of h1 application)....you don't have to wait till you get an approved H1.
tattoo 1. Why go Vegetarian?
paskal
07-29 01:17 PM
good joke too
will try redress your reputation...
will try redress your reputation...
more...
pictures diet for each food group.
fromnaija
07-11 06:31 PM
I am not sure if my previous employer will support, even i am not sure if they have sent a I-140 cancellation request to USCIS.
Can i file 485 through my current employer based on previously approved I-140 as my current I-140 has priority date recapture request.
If your former employer will not support your GC application and you are not even sure if they already cancelled your 140, then you CANNOT file 485 based on that 140.
As chennai already advised you may have your 140 premium processed.
However, reading back your origiinal post I don't think you can file 485 until your new 140 is approved since you are porting PD. So your PD must be ported to the new 140 successfully and the PD current before you can submit 485. Sorry for the initial confusion.
Can i file 485 through my current employer based on previously approved I-140 as my current I-140 has priority date recapture request.
If your former employer will not support your GC application and you are not even sure if they already cancelled your 140, then you CANNOT file 485 based on that 140.
As chennai already advised you may have your 140 premium processed.
However, reading back your origiinal post I don't think you can file 485 until your new 140 is approved since you are porting PD. So your PD must be ported to the new 140 successfully and the PD current before you can submit 485. Sorry for the initial confusion.
dresses food groups or the pyramid
admin
06-01 03:27 PM
We have discussed this issue earlier on this forum.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
more...
makeup dresses 4 food groups for kids
hopein07
03-14 12:29 PM
Don't ignore Dubai. It is a boom town and will give red carpet welcome to your wife because she is a US trained doc. I know of a few Indian docs who were on J1 visa and never got waiver jobs went to work in Dubai instead because with US degree they can practise there without any major issues. Dubai is good for IT folks too with the internet city. You may want to google and find more about Dubai's requirements.
girlfriend The Diabetes Food Pyramid
lvinaykumar
05-14 01:04 PM
i dont see change in any of the dates...... :D
hairstyles the vegetarian food groups
go_guy123
05-19 03:50 PM
I am not aginst the OP or generalizing the B1 abuse. I am stating my opinion of what could be the reason behind the denial. You know, now a days even people are getting 221g for the H4 stamping. It does not matter what visa you are going for, the US consulates just looking for a execuse to reject. Not only in India, there are lot of people getting 221g in Canada, and got stuck up there.
Exactly the point. Years of H1B and B1 abuse by IT consulting vendors have brought to this
state.
The case of DSK , IMF ex-chief proves one teh point. I go agree he is innocent until guilty.
But yes he had lots of problems with women in the past....and got away because all were in Europe.
US is different and what looks like a minor issue B1 sent to work like H1B eventually gets the spotlight and faces severe crackdown.
Exactly the point. Years of H1B and B1 abuse by IT consulting vendors have brought to this
state.
The case of DSK , IMF ex-chief proves one teh point. I go agree he is innocent until guilty.
But yes he had lots of problems with women in the past....and got away because all were in Europe.
US is different and what looks like a minor issue B1 sent to work like H1B eventually gets the spotlight and faces severe crackdown.
rnvd
10-31 10:10 AM
Hi Ramba,
The POE offier given I-94 based on the visa expiry eventhough i showed new H1b approval. I told office i am working for this new company.
The POE offier given I-94 based on the visa expiry eventhough i showed new H1b approval. I told office i am working for this new company.
nirdlalegcade
02-26 11:52 AM
First of all you have an "If" in your question. So I belive this is for future plan.
Now, when you say "suddenly GC was sent to your sister here in US" I am comfused as to whether your sister has already got the GC in mail and you are outside US?
I would request you to provide some more information on your status and info such as Whether you have had/will have approved "AP" etc before you left/plan to leave this country for studies.
yes that's right, what if my sister recieved my GC by mail here in the US while I'm outside the country.. I am planning to use my h4 visa to go out of US..
Now, when you say "suddenly GC was sent to your sister here in US" I am comfused as to whether your sister has already got the GC in mail and you are outside US?
I would request you to provide some more information on your status and info such as Whether you have had/will have approved "AP" etc before you left/plan to leave this country for studies.
yes that's right, what if my sister recieved my GC by mail here in the US while I'm outside the country.. I am planning to use my h4 visa to go out of US..
