boston_gc
01-25 05:49 PM
Which US consulate did you apply? Do you already have H1B on your passport? I think the best option will be to approach your employer and have them sort this issue out. Sometimes, the consulate will request for some additional information from the employer and once they get this information, they will issue the visa.
Good luck!
I am in a distress please help me. I attended the US consulate for a new H1B Visa. The visa was refused under 221(g). The reason mentioned for the refusal was:
Your petitioner does not appear to be either able or willing to provide qualifying employment in the United States in accordance with appropriate laws and regulations.
VO mentioned the documents will be sent back to USCIS. Pretty much kept all the documents like I-797, I 129, petition documents, certificates, client agreement, etc.
They mentioned the candidate profile is good but they have doubts about the employer. As far as I know and through my research the employer is good and have all the necessary documents correct. There is nothing wrong in the documentation and every thing is as per stipulated guidelines.
The employer has a good employeee strength and I had good feed back from other employees as well. I am pretty sure the employer is in a position to employ and provide the salary. I do not know on what basis the USCIS has come to conclusion that the employer is not qualified. Only few days back there were two visas granted for the same employer.
Please advise me what to do next. I need to do things urgently as I do not have enough time left (only few months ) on the H1 B Validity.
1. Do I need to send a mail to Consulate asking the specific reasons for denial?
2. Do I need to write to the senator or some one about this?
3. Do I need to consult an attorney about and re-request for a review of the petition?
4. Do I need to ask the employer anything specific.
I have been banking on this opportunity for the last two years and had planned everything hoping everything will go smooth. I am in a distress. Please advise me the next steps urgently so I dont loose the opportunity.
Good luck!
I am in a distress please help me. I attended the US consulate for a new H1B Visa. The visa was refused under 221(g). The reason mentioned for the refusal was:
Your petitioner does not appear to be either able or willing to provide qualifying employment in the United States in accordance with appropriate laws and regulations.
VO mentioned the documents will be sent back to USCIS. Pretty much kept all the documents like I-797, I 129, petition documents, certificates, client agreement, etc.
They mentioned the candidate profile is good but they have doubts about the employer. As far as I know and through my research the employer is good and have all the necessary documents correct. There is nothing wrong in the documentation and every thing is as per stipulated guidelines.
The employer has a good employeee strength and I had good feed back from other employees as well. I am pretty sure the employer is in a position to employ and provide the salary. I do not know on what basis the USCIS has come to conclusion that the employer is not qualified. Only few days back there were two visas granted for the same employer.
Please advise me what to do next. I need to do things urgently as I do not have enough time left (only few months ) on the H1 B Validity.
1. Do I need to send a mail to Consulate asking the specific reasons for denial?
2. Do I need to write to the senator or some one about this?
3. Do I need to consult an attorney about and re-request for a review of the petition?
4. Do I need to ask the employer anything specific.
I have been banking on this opportunity for the last two years and had planned everything hoping everything will go smooth. I am in a distress. Please advise me the next steps urgently so I dont loose the opportunity.
wallpaper Crystal Harris Photos: Hot
sledge_hammer
03-06 02:13 PM
The state that's in your LCA
Thanks for all the information and support, I really appreciate that.
I just talked with DOL representative, he was very supportive and he asked me to fill WH4 and fax it to them and said they will take immediate action on this.
I just have one more question, my employer has branch in CA and NJ both states so which address I should mention in WH4? as I think both states have diff. rules.
Thanks for all the information and support, I really appreciate that.
I just talked with DOL representative, he was very supportive and he asked me to fill WH4 and fax it to them and said they will take immediate action on this.
I just have one more question, my employer has branch in CA and NJ both states so which address I should mention in WH4? as I think both states have diff. rules.
andy garcia
02-08 09:01 AM
What is the difference between L1B and H1B? Why don't companies hire on L1B when H1B's are over? Thanks.
Macaca:
These are the descriptions for L visas.
L-1A/L-1B.
An L-1A is an alien coming temporarily to perform services in a managerial or executive capacity for the same corporation or firm, or for the branch, subsidiary or affiliate of the employer who employed him or her abroad for one continuous year within the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, in an executive, managerial or specialized knowledge capacity.
An L-1B is an alien coming temporarily to perform services that entail specialized knowledge .......
All it takes is a greedy lawyer to get them.:mad:
Macaca:
These are the descriptions for L visas.
L-1A/L-1B.
An L-1A is an alien coming temporarily to perform services in a managerial or executive capacity for the same corporation or firm, or for the branch, subsidiary or affiliate of the employer who employed him or her abroad for one continuous year within the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, in an executive, managerial or specialized knowledge capacity.
An L-1B is an alien coming temporarily to perform services that entail specialized knowledge .......
All it takes is a greedy lawyer to get them.:mad:
2011 Hefner and Crystal Harris
snathan
02-15 12:18 PM
I know but when there is a chance, we must make sure. Who told u that always works.
They advertise in the company's message board and recently I have seen they did not mention anything about qualifications for one EB2 GC of my friend.
Hence I got a doubt.
Again,
Is it a must that education like MS or equivalent experience is needed for EB2. Please let me know.
Yes you need Masters or Bachlor + 5 years progressive experience.
They advertise in the company's message board and recently I have seen they did not mention anything about qualifications for one EB2 GC of my friend.
Hence I got a doubt.
Again,
Is it a must that education like MS or equivalent experience is needed for EB2. Please let me know.
Yes you need Masters or Bachlor + 5 years progressive experience.
more...
willgetgc2005
03-28 07:56 PM
Maybe this is something we can propose.
You guys talk as if we propose and they accept. get back to realty, please.
After QGA and IV and all of us sending so many faxes etc, they did not even mention about EB visa issue in the SJC.
You are talking about a radical chnage in GC.
Get real. Get real. Let us get out of this child like proposals.
Obviously the efforts of us, IV and QGA have not been sufficient. I am not
in the least balming anyone. I for one feel IV has done exemplary work.
But the critical question is do we need to do anything different ?
Core memebers of IV, ragz4u et al, do you think we need to take a harder look and see if we are on the right path ? Did something not work as expected ? I read in one of the core memebrs post that IV members are in DC talking to senators office. Did senators office play ignorant in the SJC after being sympathetic to us ? What baffles me atleast, is the total
apathy and seeming ignorance to our issue on the part of senators. After all
our efforts. What went wrong ?
Core IV members please share your frank thoughts.
You guys talk as if we propose and they accept. get back to realty, please.
After QGA and IV and all of us sending so many faxes etc, they did not even mention about EB visa issue in the SJC.
You are talking about a radical chnage in GC.
Get real. Get real. Let us get out of this child like proposals.
Obviously the efforts of us, IV and QGA have not been sufficient. I am not
in the least balming anyone. I for one feel IV has done exemplary work.
But the critical question is do we need to do anything different ?
Core memebers of IV, ragz4u et al, do you think we need to take a harder look and see if we are on the right path ? Did something not work as expected ? I read in one of the core memebrs post that IV members are in DC talking to senators office. Did senators office play ignorant in the SJC after being sympathetic to us ? What baffles me atleast, is the total
apathy and seeming ignorance to our issue on the part of senators. After all
our efforts. What went wrong ?
Core IV members please share your frank thoughts.
somegchuh
07-20 05:05 PM
Hi eagerr2i,
My wife also wants to do her teaching credentials but we haven't been able to find the process. Would you be kind enough to describe the process i.e. evaluation where/how/what, classes where/what.
Also, does the temporary number allocated by CCT allow her to work?
Thanks
Not in CA. My wife did her entire credentailing program with out a social security number. She got her Credentail certificate from California Commission of Tecahers and finger printing also done for teaching based on that temporary number allocated by her school.
My wife also wants to do her teaching credentials but we haven't been able to find the process. Would you be kind enough to describe the process i.e. evaluation where/how/what, classes where/what.
Also, does the temporary number allocated by CCT allow her to work?
Thanks
Not in CA. My wife did her entire credentailing program with out a social security number. She got her Credentail certificate from California Commission of Tecahers and finger printing also done for teaching based on that temporary number allocated by her school.
more...
gopikrishnayr
09-07 10:03 AM
Thanks for the advices. I was more worried about any negative issues on my current 485 if I block the payment on my second set of checks. I think USCIS also will be fined if the checks bounce. I called customer support and they told me that the money would not be refundable but you can withdraw your application by writing a letter.
If I do not block my checks my worry is that it might create duplicate cases.
Yes in my second set of application I did mention the reason why I am filing the second time
Hopefully their system will block the entry of my application
If I do not block my checks my worry is that it might create duplicate cases.
Yes in my second set of application I did mention the reason why I am filing the second time
Hopefully their system will block the entry of my application
2010 Hugh Hefner and Crystal Harris
myvoice23
06-26 10:04 AM
Did you report that you used AC-21 to USCIS? If so, then it might be triggered a LUD in your 485. Nothing to worrry.
more...
2ndJuly
10-18 04:29 PM
My employer is not giving me copy of Labour certificate. I know all numbers. Do I need a copy of AC21
hair Crystal Harris nude
Blog Feeds
11-19 03:01 AM
Immigration Law from Houston Immigration Lawyer - Annie Banerjee Has Just Posted the Following:
Computerworld is reporting that USCIS will conduct 25000 H-1B raids up from 5191 last year.
For more details on what the CIS is looking for in these raids please refer to two of my previous blogs.
Two of my clients were "raided" and another one had somebody visit the beneficiary's job site.
In all these cases the officer did not ask for any documents. They seemed satisfied that the job location site actually existed, and that the beneficiary actually worked there. Beneficiaries were not questioned extensively at all.
According to the Computerworld article the USCIS found "various problems including fraud" in nearly one in five H-1B applications last year.
Yes it is important to combat fraud. But much of the fraud is because the USCIS (as does the DOL) does not accept the reality of workplace situations. In the IT business the end user usually contracts with someone, who then contracts with someone else to get the employee. For instance, Computer consulting Company A has an individual ready to work. Computer Consulting Company A has a contract with Consulting Company B. Consulting Company B has an agreement with say Megacorp C to perform the work. So A contracts the employee to B who then place him at C. The CIS holds that Company A cannot petition for the beneficiary, since Company A will not control the beneficiary and hence is not the proper employer. Company B is.
Why should control of a professional matter? Do professionals with at least a Bachelor's Degree need control? Why cant the CIS look into the reality of workplace situations?
Instead the Government is using the $500 fraud fee that it collects from Employers filing for H-1b to hire workers who does not understand the complexities of the problem to act as policeman and visit sites.
Also in keeping with this fraud finding, the CIS gives out ridiculous "requests for evidence" (RFE) to small employers. They need everything under the kitchen sink. The Company's taxes, wage report, pictures, type of toilet tissue they use, coffee maker's name. I only wish I was kidding.
All this only discourages small businesses, the backbone of the US economy from filing H-1B petitions. Yet look at this year. From April 01 to November 13, only 55,600 applications have been filed. Is this not proof that the marketplace takes care of the filings, and that most employers do not file false petitions?
And lets face it, no small employer can afford just the government fees of $1570/- per H-1B candidate, not to mention attorney's fees unless they really want the foreign employee. So these employees are NOT taking US jobs, much as the democrats like to think. And true to the democratic principal, there are no more fraud investigations on family based immigration like "paper marriages", which are far more dangerous than simply not allowing H-1Bs who don't have contracts with end users not to file.
Contact Houston Immigration Lawyer (http://www.visatous.com), Annie Banerjee for more detailshttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8629098317507537197-7403958893559959230?l=usimmigrationmatters.blogspo t.com
More... (http://usimmigrationmatters.blogspot.com/2009/11/h-1b-site-raids-revisited.html)
Computerworld is reporting that USCIS will conduct 25000 H-1B raids up from 5191 last year.
For more details on what the CIS is looking for in these raids please refer to two of my previous blogs.
Two of my clients were "raided" and another one had somebody visit the beneficiary's job site.
In all these cases the officer did not ask for any documents. They seemed satisfied that the job location site actually existed, and that the beneficiary actually worked there. Beneficiaries were not questioned extensively at all.
According to the Computerworld article the USCIS found "various problems including fraud" in nearly one in five H-1B applications last year.
Yes it is important to combat fraud. But much of the fraud is because the USCIS (as does the DOL) does not accept the reality of workplace situations. In the IT business the end user usually contracts with someone, who then contracts with someone else to get the employee. For instance, Computer consulting Company A has an individual ready to work. Computer Consulting Company A has a contract with Consulting Company B. Consulting Company B has an agreement with say Megacorp C to perform the work. So A contracts the employee to B who then place him at C. The CIS holds that Company A cannot petition for the beneficiary, since Company A will not control the beneficiary and hence is not the proper employer. Company B is.
Why should control of a professional matter? Do professionals with at least a Bachelor's Degree need control? Why cant the CIS look into the reality of workplace situations?
Instead the Government is using the $500 fraud fee that it collects from Employers filing for H-1b to hire workers who does not understand the complexities of the problem to act as policeman and visit sites.
Also in keeping with this fraud finding, the CIS gives out ridiculous "requests for evidence" (RFE) to small employers. They need everything under the kitchen sink. The Company's taxes, wage report, pictures, type of toilet tissue they use, coffee maker's name. I only wish I was kidding.
All this only discourages small businesses, the backbone of the US economy from filing H-1B petitions. Yet look at this year. From April 01 to November 13, only 55,600 applications have been filed. Is this not proof that the marketplace takes care of the filings, and that most employers do not file false petitions?
And lets face it, no small employer can afford just the government fees of $1570/- per H-1B candidate, not to mention attorney's fees unless they really want the foreign employee. So these employees are NOT taking US jobs, much as the democrats like to think. And true to the democratic principal, there are no more fraud investigations on family based immigration like "paper marriages", which are far more dangerous than simply not allowing H-1Bs who don't have contracts with end users not to file.
Contact Houston Immigration Lawyer (http://www.visatous.com), Annie Banerjee for more detailshttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8629098317507537197-7403958893559959230?l=usimmigrationmatters.blogspo t.com
More... (http://usimmigrationmatters.blogspot.com/2009/11/h-1b-site-raids-revisited.html)
more...
msyedy
01-25 11:28 AM
Nuke bill was an agreement between two nations - India and USA - hence Indian govt had a legtimate interest to lobby for it. Lobbying to change the immigration laws of a sovereign nation by a foreign govt is another cup of tea altogether, and will definitely give a bad name to our cause. You have seen what happened when Vincente Fox lobbied for CIR: even americans who were otherwise sympathetic to CIR were hostile to the idea of a foreign head of state telling them what to do with their immigration laws, and quite understandably so. This is a dead horse anyways - what is the point of flogging it further ?
How nuke bill is related to SKIL bill......
Admin close this forum.
How nuke bill is related to SKIL bill......
Admin close this forum.
hot 23 year old Crystal Harris
krishna
06-29 09:36 AM
Most west coast technology firms are very aware of the AC21 regulations. I recently talked to the HR of a reputed west coast firm and they told me the procedure for porting. They also let me talk to their law firm which deals with their immigration process. So the answer really depends on the company that you are about to join. It is not a bad idea to get everything clear before making the move.
more...
house fiancée Crystal Harris has
harryom
09-07 09:15 AM
:(My comapny send my package to Nabraska Center (received on 26th July)!!
None of my checks have been cashed and also I didn't receive any receipt so far....
IS IT Normal?? Any one in the same boat!!
Please update!!
Thanks
None of my checks have been cashed and also I didn't receive any receipt so far....
IS IT Normal?? Any one in the same boat!!
Please update!!
Thanks
tattoo Crystal Harris Photos: Hot
Jaime
05-31 01:43 PM
I work for a big company and I know where a lot of the H1B people congregate for lunch and I posted the IV poster there
more...
pictures Crystal Harris Photos: Hot
Administrator2
01-06 11:39 AM
Sen. Menendez is trying to get the dialogue started. He doesn't seem to be getting a response from Sen. Graham's office, which is not a good sign. As a next step, he is making public statements in the press with the expectation to provoke a response from Sen. Graham.
Sen. Menendez and Sen. Graham are both willing to take the lead on immigration bill. Its just that the larger politics has taken over the debate for last couple of years.
Sen. Menendez and Sen. Graham are both willing to take the lead on immigration bill. Its just that the larger politics has taken over the debate for last couple of years.
dresses Crystal Harris Hot Photos
gcnirvana
06-19 12:33 PM
...as long as the EAD renewal application is pending for more than 90 days.
Can people still get interim?
Can people still get interim?
more...
makeup Playmate Crystal Harris
RollingStone12
04-25 02:05 PM
yes america has its own problems called OBESITY and its OWN CITIZENS who kill each other every day and iys OWN citizens who commit crimes all the time;
A HOLE
You are just wasting your time defending your son...how many times you are going to do this...if not this time, next time or next time....
One day they will bell the cat.
A HOLE
You are just wasting your time defending your son...how many times you are going to do this...if not this time, next time or next time....
One day they will bell the cat.
girlfriend engaged to Crystal Harris
GCBy3000
07-09 10:05 AM
This is removed from dice now. :D
hairstyles Crystal Harris
sanju
04-19 10:59 PM
can someone tell me (PM if you dont want it on a pubic board) what went wrong with SKIL Bill last year? Where did it fail (senate/house?) did it just get dropped, or went up for vote and did not make it?
Googling around, and am not able to find anything...
Nothing went wrong with SKIL bill. Neither did SKIL bill fail. We computer programmers think that the world is built around Boolean logic 1/0, true/false, pass/fail, right/wrong. In politics most of the stuff is "in-between".
Every year many bills get introduced and only a small faction (less than 2%) are taken up for discussion/vote in the congress. Some bills pass in one house and are not taken up in the second house of the congress. Some bill pass both houses but they do not go to conference committee. A bill could be termed as “failed” if it has been voted down a majority vote in at least one house of the congress.
Last year (just like this year) key lawmakers wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill which means, everything related to immigration subject will be done in one bill. So SKIL bill was introduced but it could not be scheduled for discussion and vote in the congress. ‘Introducing” a bill simply means that a bill was registered with the one house of the congress and a bill number was allocated to that bill, that’s it. It is then the job of the majority leader in the Senate and Speaker of the House to put the bill in the calendar/schedule for discussions and, up or down vote. SKIL bill was never put on the schedule of either of the two chambers of the congress. Most articles suggested that if the SKIL bill was put on schedule all by itself, this bill would have easily passed with the majority vote. But key lawmakers did not want a separate bill for each category. They want a comprehensive bill which includes reforming employment based, nurses, family based, diversity lottery, refuges, undocumented and anything “immigration” under the sun. That is why SKIL was never discussed and voted on the floor of the congress. SKIL bill was made of the comprehensive immigration bill S.2611 that passed the Senate last year. So SKIL bill was passed by the Senate. Then there were drastic differences between the House and Senate version of the immigration bill. House version of the immigration bill border wall and enforcement only bill and House majority leadership was not ready to do any negotiations on the bill passed by the Senate. By July-August of 2006, Republican leadership decided to use “immigration” as an election platform to energize their base. So they did not want to take up a bill to fix the problem. Republican leadership in the House wanted the issue to be there so that they would go back to their base and scare voters with the “illegal alien” election platform. So in the end nothing happened. After the elections, after Republicans lost the majority in the House and the Senate, Republicans lost the need/leadership to address the immigration issue and Democrats announced to address this in the 110th Congress so that they could take up the credit for solving the problem. So for all practical purposes, nothing actually happened on immigration issue or SKIL bill.
This year too, SKIL bill is very unlikely to go anywhere all by itself. We all have to wait for the compressive immigration reform bill to pass or die. No one knows by when comprehensive bill could be considered as dead this year. Several times I have talked with my congressman’s office and they have told me that SKIL could be considered by itself only if key lawmakers know that comprehensive immigration bill is no longer possible. They never fail to add that this is a pure speculation and no one can predict how it will all unroll and we just have to wait for the things to happen in next few months. Sometimes they have also said that if comprehensive bill fails, there may not be any bill till 2009. My congressman’s office did say that we should continue to talk to other lawmakers to tell them about our problems and a need for an immigration bill.
Hope this answers your question.
Googling around, and am not able to find anything...
Nothing went wrong with SKIL bill. Neither did SKIL bill fail. We computer programmers think that the world is built around Boolean logic 1/0, true/false, pass/fail, right/wrong. In politics most of the stuff is "in-between".
Every year many bills get introduced and only a small faction (less than 2%) are taken up for discussion/vote in the congress. Some bills pass in one house and are not taken up in the second house of the congress. Some bill pass both houses but they do not go to conference committee. A bill could be termed as “failed” if it has been voted down a majority vote in at least one house of the congress.
Last year (just like this year) key lawmakers wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill which means, everything related to immigration subject will be done in one bill. So SKIL bill was introduced but it could not be scheduled for discussion and vote in the congress. ‘Introducing” a bill simply means that a bill was registered with the one house of the congress and a bill number was allocated to that bill, that’s it. It is then the job of the majority leader in the Senate and Speaker of the House to put the bill in the calendar/schedule for discussions and, up or down vote. SKIL bill was never put on the schedule of either of the two chambers of the congress. Most articles suggested that if the SKIL bill was put on schedule all by itself, this bill would have easily passed with the majority vote. But key lawmakers did not want a separate bill for each category. They want a comprehensive bill which includes reforming employment based, nurses, family based, diversity lottery, refuges, undocumented and anything “immigration” under the sun. That is why SKIL was never discussed and voted on the floor of the congress. SKIL bill was made of the comprehensive immigration bill S.2611 that passed the Senate last year. So SKIL bill was passed by the Senate. Then there were drastic differences between the House and Senate version of the immigration bill. House version of the immigration bill border wall and enforcement only bill and House majority leadership was not ready to do any negotiations on the bill passed by the Senate. By July-August of 2006, Republican leadership decided to use “immigration” as an election platform to energize their base. So they did not want to take up a bill to fix the problem. Republican leadership in the House wanted the issue to be there so that they would go back to their base and scare voters with the “illegal alien” election platform. So in the end nothing happened. After the elections, after Republicans lost the majority in the House and the Senate, Republicans lost the need/leadership to address the immigration issue and Democrats announced to address this in the 110th Congress so that they could take up the credit for solving the problem. So for all practical purposes, nothing actually happened on immigration issue or SKIL bill.
This year too, SKIL bill is very unlikely to go anywhere all by itself. We all have to wait for the compressive immigration reform bill to pass or die. No one knows by when comprehensive bill could be considered as dead this year. Several times I have talked with my congressman’s office and they have told me that SKIL could be considered by itself only if key lawmakers know that comprehensive immigration bill is no longer possible. They never fail to add that this is a pure speculation and no one can predict how it will all unroll and we just have to wait for the things to happen in next few months. Sometimes they have also said that if comprehensive bill fails, there may not be any bill till 2009. My congressman’s office did say that we should continue to talk to other lawmakers to tell them about our problems and a need for an immigration bill.
Hope this answers your question.
ramboom1
03-28 09:20 AM
Fellow IV members,
How come the "Hard Limit" is not talked about / mentioned in any of the big websites? Shusterman.com / Aila.org et all. Is it possible to get an immigration attorney to explain this crucial issue of "Hard Limit" to IV core team ?
How come the "Hard Limit" is not talked about / mentioned in any of the big websites? Shusterman.com / Aila.org et all. Is it possible to get an immigration attorney to explain this crucial issue of "Hard Limit" to IV core team ?
helpful_leo
02-03 12:31 AM
The bill seems to apply to future PhD candidates who will come on an "F4" visa. Will current PhD candidates who will graduate on an F1 visa be similarly able to adjust status after 1 year of employment? If it does not, the potential benefits will be seen only after 4-6 years, which is when new candidates on an F4 visa will be getting their PhDs!
Also, are these clauses applicable to PhDs in the life sciences? The actual language seems to talk about the "physical sciences", which I think excludes the biological sciences/ biotech, one of the areas of greatest advancements in recent and future years!
Interested individuals should contact lawmakers about these points and have them amend it!
Also, are these clauses applicable to PhDs in the life sciences? The actual language seems to talk about the "physical sciences", which I think excludes the biological sciences/ biotech, one of the areas of greatest advancements in recent and future years!
Interested individuals should contact lawmakers about these points and have them amend it!
0 comments:
Post a Comment