chanduv23
04-04 09:11 AM
I hope not. If they ban bodyshops the cap will never run out.
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
Actually it is difficult to ascertain to a level to determine if the h1b is filed by a body shop because right from Accenture, PWC to the smaller Cayotes all are offshoring and outsourcing, every company has its own product and inhouse development.
Most of American companies want a pool of talent available at time of need to choose from and these companies always maintain the supply at a premium.
A lot of people come through bodyshops and later move on to permanant jobs.
Something the differentiates research jobs, non IT jobs etc... and protect their interests and have some quota for tthem will be beneficial.
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
Actually it is difficult to ascertain to a level to determine if the h1b is filed by a body shop because right from Accenture, PWC to the smaller Cayotes all are offshoring and outsourcing, every company has its own product and inhouse development.
Most of American companies want a pool of talent available at time of need to choose from and these companies always maintain the supply at a premium.
A lot of people come through bodyshops and later move on to permanant jobs.
Something the differentiates research jobs, non IT jobs etc... and protect their interests and have some quota for tthem will be beneficial.
wallpaper wallpaper spring flowers.
Refugee_New
02-21 11:03 AM
My co-worker tried that and now has 3 RFE's to respond to.
Don't know the details but mostly it looks like a scam since why did one file Eb3 in first place and how can he add more exp. while Eb3 is pending as a factor for EB2? He is respondign since OCT. but they just keep asking for more details and they have first question for 140/PERM asking - DID YOU EVER HAD ANOTHER LABOR certification besides this one?
Be very careful-
This is what happend in my case. I converted my EB3 PD to EB2 PD.
My EB3 PD was 02/2002. LC Approved in Oct 2005. I-140 approved in 04/2006
I lost my job and joined another company. Applied PERM with MS degree. Got approved in Jan 2007. Then applied I-140 using PP, requesting to recapture older PD.
My I-140 was approved within 3 days without any trouble. Now my PD is 02/2002, EB2
So if you have a right reason then porting PD shouldn't be a problem.
Don't know the details but mostly it looks like a scam since why did one file Eb3 in first place and how can he add more exp. while Eb3 is pending as a factor for EB2? He is respondign since OCT. but they just keep asking for more details and they have first question for 140/PERM asking - DID YOU EVER HAD ANOTHER LABOR certification besides this one?
Be very careful-
This is what happend in my case. I converted my EB3 PD to EB2 PD.
My EB3 PD was 02/2002. LC Approved in Oct 2005. I-140 approved in 04/2006
I lost my job and joined another company. Applied PERM with MS degree. Got approved in Jan 2007. Then applied I-140 using PP, requesting to recapture older PD.
My I-140 was approved within 3 days without any trouble. Now my PD is 02/2002, EB2
So if you have a right reason then porting PD shouldn't be a problem.
BharatPremi
03-17 01:05 PM
42% of all EB3 Green Card has priority date before December 2003!!! Man I am in deep Sh.. hmm trouble.. :eek:
No 42% load is before June 2003 and before, in other words before July 2003.
No 42% load is before June 2003 and before, in other words before July 2003.
2011 leaves Wallpapers, Spring
go_gc_way
01-03 03:24 PM
bump !
more...
webm
03-19 11:39 AM
I called USCIS this morning and the lady took 3 mnute to explain me why the delay was happening. She mentioned that they will conduct a sweep on Fri Apr 4th to determine the I-485 cases in light of new visa bulletin and that cases will be assigned to IOs by Mon Apr 14th.
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
Thanks for the update!! dude...
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
Thanks for the update!! dude...
rajuram
03-10 09:04 PM
I agree, when will the right time to recapture visa numbers???
We did not do it in the last government,
we did not do it when the economy was good,
did not do it when they were wanting ways for new people to buy houses,
did not do it in july 2007,
THERE WILL NEVER BE A RIGHT TIME, NEVER
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
We did not do it in the last government,
we did not do it when the economy was good,
did not do it when they were wanting ways for new people to buy houses,
did not do it in july 2007,
THERE WILL NEVER BE A RIGHT TIME, NEVER
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
more...
SunnySurya
07-28 11:30 AM
Sure, I will be. But the question is whether the object is for the human consumption or not . If it is then why not.. Yes, it hurts sentiments but a line has to be drawn between sentiment and rationality.
Would you be offended if your picture is put on toilet seat??
Would you be offended if your picture is put on toilet seat??
2010 wallpaper spring flowers.
javadeveloper
12-12 03:56 PM
No one has answered my question yet - If we are so "highly skilled", why no one is listening to us in this country.
They'll definitely listen , but It takes some time , may be 5,6 years
They'll listen to you in 1 year if you have "extraordinary ability(EB1)"
They'll definitely listen , but It takes some time , may be 5,6 years
They'll listen to you in 1 year if you have "extraordinary ability(EB1)"
more...
vxb2004
04-23 08:21 PM
Great news Googler! Enjoy ur freedom friend....:)
hair Spring Flowers Live Wallpaper
spicy_guy
07-28 11:36 AM
But I do understand your point though, FYI. I already left them last summer in good terms and I still have good relationship with them. I also referred few of my friends (who had bad experience with their employers and wanted to come out) to ECG and never heard any issues from them yet :)
Other than the above, I really do NOT have anything else with them, TRUST ME dude!!!
Cool. Hard to find such Desi companies.
Other than the above, I really do NOT have anything else with them, TRUST ME dude!!!
Cool. Hard to find such Desi companies.
more...
nomi
12-11 02:48 PM
Since this has always been pushed through legilative means (S.1932), there might be a hurdle involved in using "Rulemaking" approach to this solution, nevertheless this idea should atleast be explored. Here is how rulemaking procedures work in Govt Agency: (Adding Flexibility is something that can be done through Rulemaking).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking
Adding flexibility. More detailed regulations allow for more nuanced approaches to various conditions than a single legislative standard could. Moreover, regulations tend to be more easily changed as new data or technologies emerge.
I think we should study that how does USCIS make new rule without going into Congress and then see how can we implement this rule or atleast ask them to consider this option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking
Adding flexibility. More detailed regulations allow for more nuanced approaches to various conditions than a single legislative standard could. Moreover, regulations tend to be more easily changed as new data or technologies emerge.
I think we should study that how does USCIS make new rule without going into Congress and then see how can we implement this rule or atleast ask them to consider this option.
hot dresses wallpaper Spring HD
pray
08-16 02:52 PM
Because you guys are not as clever as EB2s.
more...
house emergence of spring wallpaper
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-10 11:10 AM
Guys.....if you want to change representation to self in your 485 case, you do not need to file a form G-28......G-28 is for lawyers seeking permission to represent you. You do not need a permission for yourself............all you have to do is send USCIS a letter saying all future correspondence should be done with you and you are representing yourself on this case hereon....follow up after a month after sending the letter to ensure they have changed you as the point of contact on the case........If you are substituting your current lawyer by another one, then you need a new G-28
coolmanship, can you please share the format of the letter which we need to send to USCIS asking them of taking the attorney of the case?
I will really appreciate that.
coolmanship, can you please share the format of the letter which we need to send to USCIS asking them of taking the attorney of the case?
I will really appreciate that.
tattoo wallpaper Blue Spring Flowers
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
more...
pictures HD Wallpaper: Spring Breeze
rpuja
07-28 04:08 PM
please let me know how to close the thread. I do not want divide IV.
dresses wallpaper spring hd.
aka
04-24 12:12 PM
Congrats Googler, you have given so much to this community. You totally deserve the good news! Have a couple of cold ones on us...
more...
makeup Tags: spring wallpaper
virald
07-18 12:08 AM
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
girlfriend Spring Snowdrops Wallpaper
ramus
07-02 08:15 PM
Yes it is fine.. Thank you so much..
Please ask others to contribute..
Ramus,
I did that in the afternoon but the GOOGLE status is showing "In Process"
is that okay ? Here are the details :-
Order Details - Jul 2, 2007 2:22 PM EDT
Google Order #669480843461078
Thx,
Diptam
Please ask others to contribute..
Ramus,
I did that in the afternoon but the GOOGLE status is showing "In Process"
is that okay ? Here are the details :-
Order Details - Jul 2, 2007 2:22 PM EDT
Google Order #669480843461078
Thx,
Diptam
hairstyles Desktop Wallpaper SPRING
mirage
02-06 03:32 PM
There can be several ways to deal with this and still get least opposition, I sent you a PM...That's absolutely true. Immigration quotas were originally designed to keep people out, which meant if you were a white, Western European come on in. If you were not, you need not apply. The per country limit was instituted to redress this issue and assure diversity in the immigration process. Eliminating the per country limit would require a massive paradigm shift, that in the end would only be more harmful to those groups who perceive a short term benefits.
ajju
03-18 10:56 PM
USCIS director took the course and he failed. Then he went to Moscow and bought a fake BPD&R degree for $175. No wonder we are in such a mess.
funny :-) lets hope new director had passed and don't possess another fake BPD&R degree :-)
funny :-) lets hope new director had passed and don't possess another fake BPD&R degree :-)
NH123
05-15 11:15 AM
That's bull. Online at top-rated university costs as much as full-time but definitely not more. Most of the top-notch universities don't even differentiate in-state and out-of-state. M.B.A is a money printing machine for them. Assistantships, in full-time schools, are very few and scarce and competition for them is pretty high. I have friends going to Darden School of Business as full-time students and they are paying close to $70k in fee alone. Add to this the cost of living, books etc. Times are pretty bad now and few of them couldnot even get internships for this summer and few who got had had their offers rescinded. For full-time school you have to consider something called "Opportunity Cost". There was a article in Businessweek which mentioned that a Harvard full-time M.B.A will take 15 years to break-even on his M.B.A investment. The reason for this is that he will be spending $80k on fee alone, another $20-30k for living expenses for 2 years, another 10-20k in books and other expenses. At the same time he would have lost on a average $160-200k in 2 year salary and benefits. Combines together it adds upto $300k which can be invested at average 6% interest, if you are a savvy investor, and get good returns. Assuming a Harvard M.B.A graduate on a average make $120k out-of-school if would take 15 years for him to break-even even with all the increments and bonuses.
Now why do you think that a Harvard Graduate will stay with $120K salary for 15 years .Don't you think that in 15 years he will make much more compare to the average job?I know couple of my friends from MIT sloan are making $200K just after 3 years of graduation.
Now why do you think that a Harvard Graduate will stay with $120K salary for 15 years .Don't you think that in 15 years he will make much more compare to the average job?I know couple of my friends from MIT sloan are making $200K just after 3 years of graduation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment