JunRN
08-21 11:38 AM
Once they're through with July 2 or 3 filers, July 17th filers onwards will be next because there are just a handful who filed on July 4 to July 16. This news makes sense to me.
It seems Texas is moving fast now and so is Nebraska. We can see a big leap in the Receipting Up-date this coming Friday. Whew...mine is 2 receipting up-date away and got no privilege to see if checks got encashed because atty. paid the fees.
It seems Texas is moving fast now and so is Nebraska. We can see a big leap in the Receipting Up-date this coming Friday. Whew...mine is 2 receipting up-date away and got no privilege to see if checks got encashed because atty. paid the fees.
wallpaper neighborhoods of NYC,
harivenkat
05-11 01:11 PM
talking about backlogs
mchundi
07-28 10:17 AM
Thanks for the reply Mchundi, however, if i CHANGE the job does the rule for a 3 year H1B STILL apply? I mean how does the 3 year thing apply to me? I only have a little over 1 year on this current H1 (out of SIX years).
h1b-tristate,
All this was discussed a few times in this thread and other threads as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1216
--MC
h1b-tristate,
All this was discussed a few times in this thread and other threads as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1216
--MC
2011 neighborhoods in NYC has
ivar
03-31 05:16 PM
Hi All,
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
From your post it seems your H1b transfer was denied and not H1b extension, i think you should correct the title.
If you go to company A then you will have to file H1b transfer again with company A. I think you can file an appeal in the meain time continue working for company B for 240 days (I am not sure of this but confirm with IV gurus or attorney).
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
From your post it seems your H1b transfer was denied and not H1b extension, i think you should correct the title.
If you go to company A then you will have to file H1b transfer again with company A. I think you can file an appeal in the meain time continue working for company B for 240 days (I am not sure of this but confirm with IV gurus or attorney).
more...
bkshres
10-20 03:02 PM
My old attorney was appointed by my old employer but after I left my old company, my old attorney was working as my personal attorney and her contract with my old company was also over. and I kind of have good understanding with him. He was helpful in general scenarios as well.
But I am not sure whether I should switch the attorney. My worry is what if I tell my old attorney that I am doing G28 to new attorney from new employer and G28 form never reach USCIS file? then all the correspondence will goto my old attorney.... what will happen in those scenario?
Thanks,
BK
But I am not sure whether I should switch the attorney. My worry is what if I tell my old attorney that I am doing G28 to new attorney from new employer and G28 form never reach USCIS file? then all the correspondence will goto my old attorney.... what will happen in those scenario?
Thanks,
BK
Siboo
07-27 04:12 PM
Can someone go fr 2 jobs after EAD approval( i will use my EAD). Is is required that the job description of these jobs has to be same as filed in the application ? appreciate your help
I think you need seperate EADs for each jobs. 2 jobs means 2 EADs..:confused:
Common, You can do any number of jobs with ONE EAD. If you don't invoke AC 21, then why are you worrying about Job Description???
I think you need seperate EADs for each jobs. 2 jobs means 2 EADs..:confused:
Common, You can do any number of jobs with ONE EAD. If you don't invoke AC 21, then why are you worrying about Job Description???
more...
go_guy123
09-25 10:53 AM
No worries,
go and check here: The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
in the above link go locating the following news line, read and enjoy
""08/14/2009: Will USCIS Discontinue Concurrent I-140/485 Filing Procedure, Replaced by Preregistration and Two-Tier Filing System? ""
Hmmm....more money for USCIS, 2 times filing and double fees.
go and check here: The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
in the above link go locating the following news line, read and enjoy
""08/14/2009: Will USCIS Discontinue Concurrent I-140/485 Filing Procedure, Replaced by Preregistration and Two-Tier Filing System? ""
Hmmm....more money for USCIS, 2 times filing and double fees.
2010 Neighborhoods Of Nyc. all
cableching
07-18 06:14 PM
USCIS Looks at I-94 you entered on the I-485 application.
You must enter the latest I-94 number on the I-485, which is the one you get when you enter US on Aug 15th.
That's the basis for them to track your status in US.
You must enter the latest I-94 number on the I-485, which is the one you get when you enter US on Aug 15th.
That's the basis for them to track your status in US.
more...
PlainSpeak
04-07 02:03 PM
Please stop this discussion about US university and Indian university or for that matter about octopus
This thread is about Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins so if someone has seen the May 2011 VB lets talk about it
This thread is about Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins so if someone has seen the May 2011 VB lets talk about it
hair favorite NYC neighborhoods
harikris
12-05 09:56 PM
Hi maverick_iv and smuggymba - thanks to you both. between you two, all my Qs are answered.
I will mail the app and then go visit the embassy after 10 days - i think that will be more effective.
Thanks.
I will mail the app and then go visit the embassy after 10 days - i think that will be more effective.
Thanks.
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hot a neighborhood represented
surabhi
06-19 10:52 AM
I-485 reciepts are not part of required supporting documentation.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
see page 6:
This is for paper filing.
Need front and back of EAD card
2 photos
$340 check or None as applicable
i-485 receipt notices are required only for first time filers not filing along with I485.
Sorry to have jumped the gun. I-485 receipt is needed.
"All applications must be filed with the documents required
below, in addition to the particular evidence required for the
category listed in "Who May File This Form I-765" with fee,
if required."
On Page 4 in the Instructions doucment refers to the particular evidence
A. Adjustment Applicant--(c)(9). File your EAD
application with a copy of the receipt notice or other
evidence that your Form I-485, Application for
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, is pending.
You may file Form I-765 together with your Form
I-485.
Since it talks about other evidence, you can use FP notices.
The other requirements are photos, check for $340 if applicable, front and back of EAD card.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
see page 6:
This is for paper filing.
Need front and back of EAD card
2 photos
$340 check or None as applicable
i-485 receipt notices are required only for first time filers not filing along with I485.
Sorry to have jumped the gun. I-485 receipt is needed.
"All applications must be filed with the documents required
below, in addition to the particular evidence required for the
category listed in "Who May File This Form I-765" with fee,
if required."
On Page 4 in the Instructions doucment refers to the particular evidence
A. Adjustment Applicant--(c)(9). File your EAD
application with a copy of the receipt notice or other
evidence that your Form I-485, Application for
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, is pending.
You may file Form I-765 together with your Form
I-485.
Since it talks about other evidence, you can use FP notices.
The other requirements are photos, check for $340 if applicable, front and back of EAD card.
more...
house It is a neighborhood of off
amsgc
06-15 11:46 PM
WE are in the same situation. Even our company lawyers said the same thing i.e no risk. However, a lot of messages I have seen recommend switching to H4; but then she will have to stop working for some time.
If you read the instructions for I-485, nowhere does it require you to be on a non immigrant visa, with dual intent, to apply for I-485.
I tried to read the instructions from the standpoint of a student, and I did not find anything that says I cannot apply to adjust status. All they want is proof of your status and admission.
Also, we have someone in our company who will go for Eb1, and is on OPT (which is not a status, F1 is). He was told that he can apply for I-140!
If you read the instructions for I-485, nowhere does it require you to be on a non immigrant visa, with dual intent, to apply for I-485.
I tried to read the instructions from the standpoint of a student, and I did not find anything that says I cannot apply to adjust status. All they want is proof of your status and admission.
Also, we have someone in our company who will go for Eb1, and is on OPT (which is not a status, F1 is). He was told that he can apply for I-140!
tattoo some neighborhoods in NYC
don840
04-03 08:03 PM
The work location in LCA was company headquarter in Houston. H1 petition was submitted with LCA from Houston.
I have worked in Colorado from 2005 onwards. Company obtained LCA for Colorado, but did not file amendment with USCIS. They paid wages as per Colorado LCA, also filed CO state tax, etc. This was the scenario for both 2005 and 2007 h1 petitions.
I have worked in Colorado from 2005 onwards. Company obtained LCA for Colorado, but did not file amendment with USCIS. They paid wages as per Colorado LCA, also filed CO state tax, etc. This was the scenario for both 2005 and 2007 h1 petitions.
more...
pictures New York City neighborhood
gc_kaavaali
12-24 10:17 PM
Okay...i will try my best to keep this thread on top...
This thread has to stay on top
This thread has to stay on top
dresses Manhattan Neighborhoods Print
mbartosik
09-12 07:34 PM
If you are on bench, not getting paid, your employer normally asks you to send him a letter stating that you are on vacation. This needs to be done every month. For the period you are on vacation, there may not be any pay stubs. Once you get any project, you will send your employer another letter saying that you are back and ready to work for them.
With this approach, you WILL NOT get any trouble from USCIS or anyone. If any RFP comes, then, employer will show these documents and clear the issues. I did this in the past and all my friends who were in different stages (like Labor filed, I-140 filed, 485 filed) also did and had no problems.
But as always it is advised that to talk to the lawyer who is working on your case is best suited to answer as that person is to submit the paper work.
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
With this approach, you WILL NOT get any trouble from USCIS or anyone. If any RFP comes, then, employer will show these documents and clear the issues. I did this in the past and all my friends who were in different stages (like Labor filed, I-140 filed, 485 filed) also did and had no problems.
But as always it is advised that to talk to the lawyer who is working on your case is best suited to answer as that person is to submit the paper work.
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
more...
makeup map of nyc by neighborhood
mjdup
02-12 12:42 PM
This is a start and a good one....:) Bravo for being honest and stepping in..
girlfriend neighborhoods across NYC.
h1b_tristate
07-28 07:53 AM
U will get a 3 year H1-B with the new employer.
i donot have experience with PERM. From what i know it varies from state to state. typically 6 months, may be longer or shorter.
--MC
Thanks for the reply Mchundi, however, if i CHANGE the job does the rule for a 3 year H1B STILL apply? I mean how does the 3 year thing apply to me? I only have a little over 1 year on this current H1 (out of SIX years).
i donot have experience with PERM. From what i know it varies from state to state. typically 6 months, may be longer or shorter.
--MC
Thanks for the reply Mchundi, however, if i CHANGE the job does the rule for a 3 year H1B STILL apply? I mean how does the 3 year thing apply to me? I only have a little over 1 year on this current H1 (out of SIX years).
hairstyles Trendy Neighborhoods, Brooklyn
thirumalkn
07-24 02:24 PM
^^^^ :)
saimrathi
07-03 11:41 AM
Dont tell me you never take vacation ;-) If that is true, I will hire you.
Please hire me.. since you are all set yourself... Lets be practical.. I think contacting the media should be your top priority.. I have done it already, why dont u use your precious time there...
Please hire me.. since you are all set yourself... Lets be practical.. I think contacting the media should be your top priority.. I have done it already, why dont u use your precious time there...
sureshvd
10-15 11:15 AM
Hi svr_76,
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
No comments:
Post a Comment