av2004
01-10 10:32 PM
Check out this Posting by the "OH Law firm" dated 01/07/2007. Is this a good sign?
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
If not, I will go ahead and send my letter as well...
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
If not, I will go ahead and send my letter as well...
wallpaper emma watson vogue shoot.
gc28262
06-14 12:00 AM
I would like to point out the differences between H1B and L1
1. There is a yearly limit for H1B (65k + 20K) but L1s are limitless.
2. A minimum wage need clause is there for H1B but minimum wage is not required to be paid for L1s. There are people in L1A visas who are supposed to be Senior Managers are sometimes paid less than 60K per annum by these offshore companies. As although they are brough in L1A visa they are in fact developers.
3. Almost 99% of the L1s are from offshore companies whose main intention is to send the project/job to offshore, most of the H1Bs do not have this intention.
4. L1s cannot change their employer, so they are bound to follow what their offshore employer ask them to do i.e try to take the job offshore, H1Bs can change employers, they will not try to send the job to offshore as they will then eventually have tomove back to offshore.
So if we clearify these points even to the antis, I hope they will understand who is the real culprint for the employment scarcity. Each of these companies are moving thousands of jobs out of this country making the problems for Citizens/Green Card holders/H1Bs.
99.99% of all the L1s are not used as they were intended when the law was signed.
All these may be true. No matter how you convince antis, they won't support any foriegn worker here. They want all of us out.
Even if authorities bans all these L1s, outsourcing will not stop. On the contrary it will intensify.
Before the 2001 recession, many companies were reluctant to outsource their work to India or other countries. When recession hit in 2001, many companies overcame this inhibition and started outsourcing jobs in large scale.
If companies find more stumbling blocks to operate their business, they will find even more innovative ways to overcome those. Remember India is no longer a back office for a low end work now. Many companies have even moved their R&D to India.
1. There is a yearly limit for H1B (65k + 20K) but L1s are limitless.
2. A minimum wage need clause is there for H1B but minimum wage is not required to be paid for L1s. There are people in L1A visas who are supposed to be Senior Managers are sometimes paid less than 60K per annum by these offshore companies. As although they are brough in L1A visa they are in fact developers.
3. Almost 99% of the L1s are from offshore companies whose main intention is to send the project/job to offshore, most of the H1Bs do not have this intention.
4. L1s cannot change their employer, so they are bound to follow what their offshore employer ask them to do i.e try to take the job offshore, H1Bs can change employers, they will not try to send the job to offshore as they will then eventually have tomove back to offshore.
So if we clearify these points even to the antis, I hope they will understand who is the real culprint for the employment scarcity. Each of these companies are moving thousands of jobs out of this country making the problems for Citizens/Green Card holders/H1Bs.
99.99% of all the L1s are not used as they were intended when the law was signed.
All these may be true. No matter how you convince antis, they won't support any foriegn worker here. They want all of us out.
Even if authorities bans all these L1s, outsourcing will not stop. On the contrary it will intensify.
Before the 2001 recession, many companies were reluctant to outsource their work to India or other countries. When recession hit in 2001, many companies overcame this inhibition and started outsourcing jobs in large scale.
If companies find more stumbling blocks to operate their business, they will find even more innovative ways to overcome those. Remember India is no longer a back office for a low end work now. Many companies have even moved their R&D to India.
vdlrao
04-05 03:50 PM
I am posting this from Ron Gotcher's forum-
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up ----------------------------------------are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, --------------of the year.
Is that mean they are going to move the PDs much further and again move back during the end of the year!!
So isn't this implying that the PDs will advance very very further than the available visa numbers!!!!!!!!!!
.
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up ----------------------------------------are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, --------------of the year.
Is that mean they are going to move the PDs much further and again move back during the end of the year!!
So isn't this implying that the PDs will advance very very further than the available visa numbers!!!!!!!!!!
.
2011 emma watson vogue shoot 2011.
Milind123
01-24 01:36 PM
Why don't you dispute the charges. Dispute the amout that they overcharged. Then Credit Card company will refund you that amount and deal with Embassy themselves. Which card did you use to pay (AMEX/V/MC). AMEX is the most consumer friendly in this regards.
I always use AMEX and I know they have a good service. Maybe that is the reason they don't accept AMEX. I also disputed the charges with my CC company and they just got back to me after a month. They require some kind of proof (which I have), but I know what they are going to say. Since the email from UK emb(ass)y clearly mention the amount of $184 and $276, they (CC company) will say the charges are correct. The trick is to catch someone at the emb(ass)y, but it will only work if their email's are working or someone out there will handle my voice mail message left on their answering machine. It is much easier for them to delete/ignore the message than to take pains to correct the situation. Remember, I am dealing with a useless govt. organization rather than a highly competitive private company.
I always use AMEX and I know they have a good service. Maybe that is the reason they don't accept AMEX. I also disputed the charges with my CC company and they just got back to me after a month. They require some kind of proof (which I have), but I know what they are going to say. Since the email from UK emb(ass)y clearly mention the amount of $184 and $276, they (CC company) will say the charges are correct. The trick is to catch someone at the emb(ass)y, but it will only work if their email's are working or someone out there will handle my voice mail message left on their answering machine. It is much easier for them to delete/ignore the message than to take pains to correct the situation. Remember, I am dealing with a useless govt. organization rather than a highly competitive private company.
more...
jayleno
10-28 08:03 PM
I just dropped the letters in the mailbox. Thanks to all the people behind this effort.
saileshdude
09-12 10:00 AM
You seem pretty confident about getting an RFE. Did you already see the online status changed and just waiting for it to arrive in the mail OR is this pure guess work?
The reason I ask is because I am also in the middle of changing jobs and so have the same concern but not very confident of receiving one.
My priority date is current since september 2010.
My H1B transfer application is with USCIS since Aug 27th, 2010. The date for transfer requested is Novemebr 1st, 2010.
My I 485 was filed in Aug 2008. I have been working with the current sponsoring employer since 2005, no breaks.
I am expecting an RFE for my I 485. Anyone who was in similar situation share what kind of RFE is likely to be issued? I already have a job letter from the new employer essentially stating same kind of work duties.
Thanks.
PS: Also, how do you start a new thread on IV?
The reason I ask is because I am also in the middle of changing jobs and so have the same concern but not very confident of receiving one.
My priority date is current since september 2010.
My H1B transfer application is with USCIS since Aug 27th, 2010. The date for transfer requested is Novemebr 1st, 2010.
My I 485 was filed in Aug 2008. I have been working with the current sponsoring employer since 2005, no breaks.
I am expecting an RFE for my I 485. Anyone who was in similar situation share what kind of RFE is likely to be issued? I already have a job letter from the new employer essentially stating same kind of work duties.
Thanks.
PS: Also, how do you start a new thread on IV?
more...
puddonhead
06-18 11:24 AM
Are you suggesting the fraud should not be reported?
Its like saying that do not report burglary in your home, as thief may do something bad to the family. Typical scare the victim approach.
No - I am not suggesting that!!
What I am suggesting is that the right time to take this up is when a recession is not in full swing. Between 2004 (when this law was enacted) and 2007 was a great time to pick this battle. Maybe another year down the line would also be a great time to pick it. Picking up this particular battle right now would probably make YOUR and MY lives much more difficult in the medium term.
Like you and the OP - I am a selfish individual. I will pick up only those fights which are in my interest. I believe that this particular fight is a lose-lose proposition in the current climate. I am disputing your (and OPs) belief that this will be beneficial for you/me/rest of us.
Lets take the example of the same Goldman Sachs manager. Tomorrow ICE comes to him and says you need to get rid of these 50 guys under you. What will he do? He cant increase the budget in the current environment. So he probably will hire a couple of GC holders/Citizens and replaces the whole division (with 50 GC/Citizens besides the 50 'violators') with an offshore team.
Think about it!!
Now is the time when everybody is thinking in terms of cost cutting. If you create costly disruptions now - then either the company becomes GM and lose out to overseas competitors or migrates the eitire division out.
Its like saying that do not report burglary in your home, as thief may do something bad to the family. Typical scare the victim approach.
No - I am not suggesting that!!
What I am suggesting is that the right time to take this up is when a recession is not in full swing. Between 2004 (when this law was enacted) and 2007 was a great time to pick this battle. Maybe another year down the line would also be a great time to pick it. Picking up this particular battle right now would probably make YOUR and MY lives much more difficult in the medium term.
Like you and the OP - I am a selfish individual. I will pick up only those fights which are in my interest. I believe that this particular fight is a lose-lose proposition in the current climate. I am disputing your (and OPs) belief that this will be beneficial for you/me/rest of us.
Lets take the example of the same Goldman Sachs manager. Tomorrow ICE comes to him and says you need to get rid of these 50 guys under you. What will he do? He cant increase the budget in the current environment. So he probably will hire a couple of GC holders/Citizens and replaces the whole division (with 50 GC/Citizens besides the 50 'violators') with an offshore team.
Think about it!!
Now is the time when everybody is thinking in terms of cost cutting. If you create costly disruptions now - then either the company becomes GM and lose out to overseas competitors or migrates the eitire division out.
2010 emma watson vogue shoot
Macaca
07-22 08:27 AM
Lou Dobbs Tonight 03/28/2007 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/28/ldt.01.html): "It's pretty remarkable. Four hundred thousand H1 visas each year."
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
more...
SunnySurya
08-07 01:26 PM
You stand is understandable, but I still will urge you to join me. It is of course not illegal but unfair towards the people already in EB2 line. If there were no limits on visas, it will not have been an issue to begin with. Think about the depth of the issue.
Hi SunnySurya an Rolling_flood,
I am EB2 and have a Masters but I don't support your case or even the basis of it. Mostly it is because I don't think MOST of the folks who use PD porting are doing it illegally or even cutting through the line undeservedly. If I am not wrong, these folks will have put in the time (work exp wise and/or added higher education) and should rightfully get the position certified as EB2.
Now granted that there are always a small minority people who genuinely are not deserving. First, can you define in your view what kind of PD porting is unethical?
Additionally, can you back up your claims by providing any kind of stats of such cases per year and how much impact it really causes to the GC wait time of those already waiting in queue for EB2? Are they that significant for you and Rolling Stone to feel so wronged?
In conclusion, unlike the unjust labor substitution process, your case is not convincing because I don't think most people availing PD porting are doing anything wrong legally and ethically. I would love to see stats and examples though.
Regards.
Hi SunnySurya an Rolling_flood,
I am EB2 and have a Masters but I don't support your case or even the basis of it. Mostly it is because I don't think MOST of the folks who use PD porting are doing it illegally or even cutting through the line undeservedly. If I am not wrong, these folks will have put in the time (work exp wise and/or added higher education) and should rightfully get the position certified as EB2.
Now granted that there are always a small minority people who genuinely are not deserving. First, can you define in your view what kind of PD porting is unethical?
Additionally, can you back up your claims by providing any kind of stats of such cases per year and how much impact it really causes to the GC wait time of those already waiting in queue for EB2? Are they that significant for you and Rolling Stone to feel so wronged?
In conclusion, unlike the unjust labor substitution process, your case is not convincing because I don't think most people availing PD porting are doing anything wrong legally and ethically. I would love to see stats and examples though.
Regards.
hair emma watson vogue shoot.
ganguteli
06-10 01:27 PM
I am also from India but the point I am discussing here is clearly a violation of law by Outsourcing vendors including IBM (not just Indian companies), TCS, Wipro etc. I work for a medium size consulting firm based in US and on H1 visa ...and I am impacted by these violations and I think I have the right to oppose this act.... to prove my identity shud I tell you my stories in Chennai consulate... or shud I tell u abt my days in b'lore or shud I tell you all abt my 24 years in India.. you can decide :-).
BUT regarding the L1 violation we have decided and this time the vendor is exposed to the authorities and justice is done. We have the support of good client managers who understands visa regulations.
Whatever Dude!
I have heard that story before. Ask your bosses at losers guild to teach you better stories to blend in with us.
If you are really sincere, why don't you send your name, phone number and employer name to IV and IV will put you in touch with the right people to complain?
No point trying to hide your identity and faking your own convictions.
BUT regarding the L1 violation we have decided and this time the vendor is exposed to the authorities and justice is done. We have the support of good client managers who understands visa regulations.
Whatever Dude!
I have heard that story before. Ask your bosses at losers guild to teach you better stories to blend in with us.
If you are really sincere, why don't you send your name, phone number and employer name to IV and IV will put you in touch with the right people to complain?
No point trying to hide your identity and faking your own convictions.
more...
factoryman
06-21 01:42 PM
that's is how my attorney sent it to me. I just looked at my record copy and answering such questions like this.
By the way fellow IVans, don't forget to keep one copy of every thing (of course NOT the sealed cover)of AOS, EAD, AP filing for your records and future reference. Friday evn. after 3.00 PM is a good time at your office copier. Don't use - Automatic Document feeder (whatever thay call it - you pile your papers on top and press button); do it the hard way. One paper after another.
Don't comeback and CRY that you Original Approval Notice or I-94 or BC or something like that was stuck in the copier and now damaged.
In the section 11 of the document what should be the text incase you are supporting your spouse and child @100%
Appreciate your help
///////////////////////////////
I
intend
do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person(s) named in item 3.
(If you check "intend," indicate the exact nature and duration of the contributions. For example, if you intend to furnishroom and board, state for how long and, if money, state the amount in U.S. dollars and state whether it is to be given in a lumpsum, weekly or monthly, and for how long.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
roy
By the way fellow IVans, don't forget to keep one copy of every thing (of course NOT the sealed cover)of AOS, EAD, AP filing for your records and future reference. Friday evn. after 3.00 PM is a good time at your office copier. Don't use - Automatic Document feeder (whatever thay call it - you pile your papers on top and press button); do it the hard way. One paper after another.
Don't comeback and CRY that you Original Approval Notice or I-94 or BC or something like that was stuck in the copier and now damaged.
In the section 11 of the document what should be the text incase you are supporting your spouse and child @100%
Appreciate your help
///////////////////////////////
I
intend
do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person(s) named in item 3.
(If you check "intend," indicate the exact nature and duration of the contributions. For example, if you intend to furnishroom and board, state for how long and, if money, state the amount in U.S. dollars and state whether it is to be given in a lumpsum, weekly or monthly, and for how long.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
roy
hot wallpaper emma watson vogue
gccube
09-07 01:54 PM
Just curious.... When do they do the name check? Is it after the fingerprints are complete??
I just spoke to a USCIS rep who was very helpful. She took the A# of mine and my wife's and verified the status of FBI name check and FP check. My name check is pending with FBI and my wife's was cleared as per her. For both of us the FP check is cleared.
When I asked her when my name check was initiated I was told that it was on Aug 1st 2007. This is approximately 1 week after my 485 notice date. My FP was done on Aug 21st 2007.
I just spoke to a USCIS rep who was very helpful. She took the A# of mine and my wife's and verified the status of FBI name check and FP check. My name check is pending with FBI and my wife's was cleared as per her. For both of us the FP check is cleared.
When I asked her when my name check was initiated I was told that it was on Aug 1st 2007. This is approximately 1 week after my 485 notice date. My FP was done on Aug 21st 2007.
more...
house Emma Watson // Vogue Magazine
danu2007
10-30 11:01 PM
Done...Posted all the four..
tattoo emma watson vogue 2011
mojito_blender
06-21 03:01 PM
Does anyone know about the W2 form and 1040 tax return forms? I currently only have W2 and 1040 for the year 2006, but my lawyer says I need to submit the past three years. Is there any problem?
more...
pictures Emma Watson has glammed up for
gc_nebraska
08-12 12:48 PM
Congrats ! All who got greeened today and also good to PD DEC'05 approvals ...............
dresses emma watson vogue cover shoot.
Bpositive
10-07 12:37 PM
USCIS decided to take our $604 and give me an my wife APs in 9 days! They seem really efficient when they have to take money from us. But really slow when they have to approve GC applications (EB2, PD of Dec 2004). USCIS just seems to be interested in 'extortion' payments to employ USCIS staff - more a lawless mafia than a organization upholding the law!
more...
makeup girlfriend emma watson vogue
nkalpana
02-12 02:40 AM
... do we have to think out of the box to identify what is really the problem?
What are they doing with our documents... where are they storing it? whjat security are they giving to our sensitive docs? what is the process by which they are clearing the backlog, when everyday they get loads and loads of new work??
shahuja... we are still waiting
What are they doing with our documents... where are they storing it? whjat security are they giving to our sensitive docs? what is the process by which they are clearing the backlog, when everyday they get loads and loads of new work??
shahuja... we are still waiting
girlfriend emma watson vogue shoot.
SunnySurya
08-07 06:17 AM
Notes:
If you already have applied in EB2 you won't be affected.
If you have a Masters you won't be affected.
SunnySurya, Flood,
I see that you guys didnt join IV until 2008. So, you know very less about this org. The people who only can think for their own wont come to join you at any stage, it was proven many times. They will just keep writing messages here and use valuable information on the forum.
I am EB2/Masters/PD Nov 2004. I do not not support your idea. I loose patience at times, but not to the extent of effecting other peoples chances. I know quite a few of my freinds who had masters, their corporate employers applied in EB3, none of them are trying to do conversion. But, i feel their pain.
If you already have applied in EB2 you won't be affected.
If you have a Masters you won't be affected.
SunnySurya, Flood,
I see that you guys didnt join IV until 2008. So, you know very less about this org. The people who only can think for their own wont come to join you at any stage, it was proven many times. They will just keep writing messages here and use valuable information on the forum.
I am EB2/Masters/PD Nov 2004. I do not not support your idea. I loose patience at times, but not to the extent of effecting other peoples chances. I know quite a few of my freinds who had masters, their corporate employers applied in EB3, none of them are trying to do conversion. But, i feel their pain.
hairstyles hairstyles emma watson vogue
singhsa3
10-17 03:21 PM
Anyone in the similar boat as mine?
I am a july 2nd filer and filed my second application on Aug 15th.
Now that I have got receipts for July 2nd applications, I have put stop payments on the checks on Aug 15th application.
My hope is that my 2nd application will not be processed.
I am a july 2nd filer and filed my second application on Aug 15th.
Now that I have got receipts for July 2nd applications, I have put stop payments on the checks on Aug 15th application.
My hope is that my 2nd application will not be processed.
chandrajp
04-20 11:36 AM
I applied for EAD on 03/22 online and the service center is Nebraska. My current one expires on 07/07. I applied exactly 3 and 1/2 months before. I checked the USCIS web site, it says one need to apply 6 months before the expiry of current one. I'm little worried as I'm not sure if I can get my EAD in time before 07/07. Any inputs as to what can I do in case if I don't get my EAD in time
Karthikthiru
07-11 01:11 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html?hpid=moreheadlines
The page does have the picture of the flowers
Karthik
The page does have the picture of the flowers
Karthik
0 comments:
Post a Comment