kuhelica2000
02-13 10:06 AM
I couldn't agree more with you. The limited number of GC is definitely a critical factor. But we have contributed to this mess ourselves. Look what happened with EB2 India. Did India started producing EB2 talents overnight? No; rather we started polishing our resumes with inflated years of experience and job description so that we can apply to EB2. The system is too liberal and based on trust. If employers start scrutinizing resumes and certificates a lot of applicants will simply drop off from the GC queue.
Before the Y2K problem, the most common route for Indians to migrate to the US (EB category) was this -->
TOEFL
GRE
Admission into US university (most likely for masters)
Scholarship or loan
MS/Phd in US
Internship using OPT
Job/ H1
Since this involved multiple non trivial steps; the barrier for entry was pretty high that prevented mass migration.
There were procedural delays (in some states with a lot of Indian population ( oh yeah; labor certs used to take 3-5 years esp in California, Texas & Northeast; but you could get labor cert faster in south dakota or such less densely populated places; but once you hit the 485 stage, you were certain of a GC within a few months )
And then along with Y2K came TCS, Wipro, Infosys, & infinite other bodyshops that suddenly changed the equation. No need for TOEFL, GRE. No need to fight for scholarship; no need for TA. no need for RA; no need for MS; in a lot of cases, no need for even UG degree in computers/engg. The requirements ranged from having all 10 fingers in place to knowing the right people in the bodyshop company to land an assignment in the US. Once placed at a client site, it was just a matter of finding the right opportunity to get the client to sponsor your H1. I am sure there were a lot other ways the H1 & L1 visas were abused.
So the situation changed from just procedural delays to procedural delays + extra influx of Indians due to H1/L1 visa misuse.
Ofcourse, we can only blame the inefficiencies of the USCIS/INS/DOL system & silently turn the other way when malpractices & visa abuse were rampant (I guess still is) in the IT bodyshop industry.
I am sure this rant will seem extremely prejudicial. But just for a slight moment; think about why all this happened.
Before the Y2K problem, the most common route for Indians to migrate to the US (EB category) was this -->
TOEFL
GRE
Admission into US university (most likely for masters)
Scholarship or loan
MS/Phd in US
Internship using OPT
Job/ H1
Since this involved multiple non trivial steps; the barrier for entry was pretty high that prevented mass migration.
There were procedural delays (in some states with a lot of Indian population ( oh yeah; labor certs used to take 3-5 years esp in California, Texas & Northeast; but you could get labor cert faster in south dakota or such less densely populated places; but once you hit the 485 stage, you were certain of a GC within a few months )
And then along with Y2K came TCS, Wipro, Infosys, & infinite other bodyshops that suddenly changed the equation. No need for TOEFL, GRE. No need to fight for scholarship; no need for TA. no need for RA; no need for MS; in a lot of cases, no need for even UG degree in computers/engg. The requirements ranged from having all 10 fingers in place to knowing the right people in the bodyshop company to land an assignment in the US. Once placed at a client site, it was just a matter of finding the right opportunity to get the client to sponsor your H1. I am sure there were a lot other ways the H1 & L1 visas were abused.
So the situation changed from just procedural delays to procedural delays + extra influx of Indians due to H1/L1 visa misuse.
Ofcourse, we can only blame the inefficiencies of the USCIS/INS/DOL system & silently turn the other way when malpractices & visa abuse were rampant (I guess still is) in the IT bodyshop industry.
I am sure this rant will seem extremely prejudicial. But just for a slight moment; think about why all this happened.
wallpaper 2007 Ford Escape XLT Lease
acecupid
07-16 06:50 PM
This whole thread is speculation, your basic assumption itself is wrong. The horizonal spill over is not a permanent policy or trend which will be practised. You should read the INA law clearly. But if this speculation makes you happy, enjoy! :)
senthil1
02-13 09:11 AM
I think unused other country quota is used for oversubscribed countries like India and china in the last quarter. If that is true then even removing country quota will not make much difference for Eb3. Now waiting time is 7 years. It will be 5 years for all the countries. When they remove country quota persons from countries like Europe may lose interest in applying gc as they may think is not worth for them to apply and wait 5 years or more as there is not much difference in lifestyle between US and Europe. I doubt US will remove country cap. But we never know as world changes fast nowadays.Anyhow country quota is not correct and it is similar to reservation in India. If reservation concept is correct then country quota is correct as every country in world get benefit.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with skill level. Consider this also, if no other countries come close to the 7% limit, but India and China are maxed out. Guess who loses just because of an arbitrary limit? Guess where those unused greencards go?
They go to a pile of greencards, left unused and wasted. Wash, rinse, repeat the same cycle year on year. June 07 will be a looooooong way away (if you are from a severely retrogressed country), don't kid yourself.
btw... i was agreeing with abhijitp.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with skill level. Consider this also, if no other countries come close to the 7% limit, but India and China are maxed out. Guess who loses just because of an arbitrary limit? Guess where those unused greencards go?
They go to a pile of greencards, left unused and wasted. Wash, rinse, repeat the same cycle year on year. June 07 will be a looooooong way away (if you are from a severely retrogressed country), don't kid yourself.
btw... i was agreeing with abhijitp.
2011 2007 Ford Escape XLT
ramus
07-03 05:16 PM
http://digg.com/politics/No_July_4th_Celebrations_for_Highly_Skilled_Future _Americans/who
more...
ronhira
01-13 08:53 PM
This will only increat outsourcing and actually hurt US economy and jobs...too bad that "blinded" politicians do not recognize this.
they r blinded....... remember..... but they will recognize..... when most of the jobs are outsourced....
they r blinded....... remember..... but they will recognize..... when most of the jobs are outsourced....
Michael chertoff
07-12 02:03 PM
My question:
I left my GC sponsoring company, and joined different company on EAD. working in new company from last two months.(My I-140 was approved on 2006.)
I did not used AC21 , because my previous company is supporting me they said they will not revoke I-140 and will give me any letter on any RFE.
My question:
1.Is it Ok that i will keep working on new comapny without invoking AC21 and go back to my previous employer on i-485 approval.
2. Or in case of any RFE i will send the AC21 paperwork from new employer.
3. Or if there is no RFE, and i get approval. then i will go back to my old employer and ask them for a letter that they are not able give me job because of there financial reason(for my records to show that i wanted to work for that employer). I will keep working with new employer without informing USCIS.
please suggest what should i do in this situation.
Or it is must to INVOKE AC21 for me even both companies are supporting me.
thanks.
MC
I left my GC sponsoring company, and joined different company on EAD. working in new company from last two months.(My I-140 was approved on 2006.)
I did not used AC21 , because my previous company is supporting me they said they will not revoke I-140 and will give me any letter on any RFE.
My question:
1.Is it Ok that i will keep working on new comapny without invoking AC21 and go back to my previous employer on i-485 approval.
2. Or in case of any RFE i will send the AC21 paperwork from new employer.
3. Or if there is no RFE, and i get approval. then i will go back to my old employer and ask them for a letter that they are not able give me job because of there financial reason(for my records to show that i wanted to work for that employer). I will keep working with new employer without informing USCIS.
please suggest what should i do in this situation.
Or it is must to INVOKE AC21 for me even both companies are supporting me.
thanks.
MC
more...
grupak
02-13 01:34 PM
Finally you hit the nail on its head. That’s why the per country limit is there so no one country with larger population can monopolize any agenda the way you are trying to do with IV.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
2010 2008 Ford Escape Xlt Sport
conchshell
07-26 05:08 PM
In the past 4+ years, the annual H1 queue is just 65K. So the input into the EB queue must have moderated quite a bit.
Another piece of information, supporting your argument. This is posted on immigration-law.com today:
The DOL has yet to release its 3rd Quarter Performance report ending at the end of June 2008, but the second quarter report indicates that the foreign labor certification applications continuously dropped from the same period in FY 2007 including permanent as well as temporary labor certification applications. PERM applications dropped 46% from the statistics of the second quarter of FY 2007. The report indicates that despite increased audits (over 45%) and related work, the processing times remain steady. Obviously, it must have been affected more by decreased number of new applications than any drastic improvement in processing times in each application. In fact, from the perspectives of each PERM application, the processing times have witnessed a substantial delay over the last one year. The delay which was associated with the massive audit and related activities could have been offset by the substantial drop in the PERM applications in the overall statistical figure in the report. The DOL report did not report the details of the causes for continuing decrease in PERM applications, but this should be taken as an alert to the U.S. businesses as an indication of reduced incentives for the needed foreign workers to remain in the U.S. and potential reduced availability of the talented foreign workers to support the U.S. businesses' competition in the world. Considering the fact that the supply and demand of resources at the international level are not something which can be rebalanced over a night or a short period of time, the political leaders should start paying attention to the urgency of the reform in the employment-based immigration system before it gets too late.
Another piece of information, supporting your argument. This is posted on immigration-law.com today:
The DOL has yet to release its 3rd Quarter Performance report ending at the end of June 2008, but the second quarter report indicates that the foreign labor certification applications continuously dropped from the same period in FY 2007 including permanent as well as temporary labor certification applications. PERM applications dropped 46% from the statistics of the second quarter of FY 2007. The report indicates that despite increased audits (over 45%) and related work, the processing times remain steady. Obviously, it must have been affected more by decreased number of new applications than any drastic improvement in processing times in each application. In fact, from the perspectives of each PERM application, the processing times have witnessed a substantial delay over the last one year. The delay which was associated with the massive audit and related activities could have been offset by the substantial drop in the PERM applications in the overall statistical figure in the report. The DOL report did not report the details of the causes for continuing decrease in PERM applications, but this should be taken as an alert to the U.S. businesses as an indication of reduced incentives for the needed foreign workers to remain in the U.S. and potential reduced availability of the talented foreign workers to support the U.S. businesses' competition in the world. Considering the fact that the supply and demand of resources at the international level are not something which can be rebalanced over a night or a short period of time, the political leaders should start paying attention to the urgency of the reform in the employment-based immigration system before it gets too late.
more...
user1205
02-12 02:54 PM
Also keep in mind all the people with old PDs that filed 140 and 485 at the same time and are now stuck in the 140 mess. As soon as that starts clearing out there will be a lot more demand for GC. I'm afraid we'll have to wait for some more time before it moves forward.
hair 2005 Ford Escape XLT Sport
eastwest
07-11 03:58 PM
HI,
I have filed my 485 on 8th June 2007, My 140 is approved in August 2006.
I have 2 different questions.
I have changed the job on 1st July 2008. Do I need to involve my attorney to file for AC 21? The New job title is "System Administrator" which is the same ONET CODE.
IN the while I have another offer with title as "Sr Systems Analyst".
My labor was applied as "Network Engineer" ONET code 15-1071. Can I switch to a job with title "Sr. Systems Analyst" ONET Code 15-1081.00 or 15-1051.00
Thanks
I have filed my 485 on 8th June 2007, My 140 is approved in August 2006.
I have 2 different questions.
I have changed the job on 1st July 2008. Do I need to involve my attorney to file for AC 21? The New job title is "System Administrator" which is the same ONET CODE.
IN the while I have another offer with title as "Sr Systems Analyst".
My labor was applied as "Network Engineer" ONET code 15-1071. Can I switch to a job with title "Sr. Systems Analyst" ONET Code 15-1081.00 or 15-1051.00
Thanks
more...
dilipcr
06-12 03:05 AM
He has not learnt his lesson. Let him figure out why he was laid off thrice.
So you guys are saying that I was laid off thrice in 1 year because I was the rotten apple ? If this is how you guys are going to present arguments, I think I am wasting my time here.
I am not saying ALL companies are misusing are L1s/H1bs or all L1s/H1Bs are bad. All I am saying is that the outsourcing companies have no legality in using L1 visas for bringing in low wage programmers. I am only saying that ban the outsourcing companies from flooding this country with low wage workers. If you did not know, L1 was primarily meant for intra company transfer of high skilled managers and higher level executives.
<< Originally Posted by bubba
If you have seen any companies misuse the H1 and L1 visa, you can complain about them. Dont go screaming around that the whole H1 and L1 program is bad.
As I said, I am not saying that the entire H1/L1 is bad. It is just the select set of companies misusing the program that are causing a bad name.
Its because of people like you that a whole group gets a bad name due to some rotten apples. Btw, all your arguments dont seem to help the IV community.
If IV community is a community that is organized to work for the betterment of the best and brightest of the H1B, then I would hope that my arguments hold water. if IV community is working for all immigrants, including those who are here knowingly or unknowingly based on perpetual fraud then I am at the wrong place. If this is the case, I am fairly confident that it would be tough to gain the support of the GC holders and the naturalized citizens for the initiatives encompassing this entire gamut of visa holders.
Why are you even here on IV if your idealogy is not aligned with IV ? If you cant support us we dont need suggestions from a traitor like you
If your responses are going to be solely based on personal attacks and name calling, I dont think your arguments would hold strength. Trust me, I am one of the regional coordinators of Kiva.org, a microfinance organization for the poor, for southern India.In addition, I have been sponsoring 7 kids' tuitions at Udavum karangal in India. I have undertaken to sponsor their education till college. Currently they are in grade six. I am a self made man and wasnt born with a silver spoon. I was badly affected by the reservation policy, read 69% reservation, in Tamil Nadu. And you guys think I am traitor. What can I say ?
>>
So you guys are saying that I was laid off thrice in 1 year because I was the rotten apple ? If this is how you guys are going to present arguments, I think I am wasting my time here.
I am not saying ALL companies are misusing are L1s/H1bs or all L1s/H1Bs are bad. All I am saying is that the outsourcing companies have no legality in using L1 visas for bringing in low wage programmers. I am only saying that ban the outsourcing companies from flooding this country with low wage workers. If you did not know, L1 was primarily meant for intra company transfer of high skilled managers and higher level executives.
<< Originally Posted by bubba
If you have seen any companies misuse the H1 and L1 visa, you can complain about them. Dont go screaming around that the whole H1 and L1 program is bad.
As I said, I am not saying that the entire H1/L1 is bad. It is just the select set of companies misusing the program that are causing a bad name.
Its because of people like you that a whole group gets a bad name due to some rotten apples. Btw, all your arguments dont seem to help the IV community.
If IV community is a community that is organized to work for the betterment of the best and brightest of the H1B, then I would hope that my arguments hold water. if IV community is working for all immigrants, including those who are here knowingly or unknowingly based on perpetual fraud then I am at the wrong place. If this is the case, I am fairly confident that it would be tough to gain the support of the GC holders and the naturalized citizens for the initiatives encompassing this entire gamut of visa holders.
Why are you even here on IV if your idealogy is not aligned with IV ? If you cant support us we dont need suggestions from a traitor like you
If your responses are going to be solely based on personal attacks and name calling, I dont think your arguments would hold strength. Trust me, I am one of the regional coordinators of Kiva.org, a microfinance organization for the poor, for southern India.In addition, I have been sponsoring 7 kids' tuitions at Udavum karangal in India. I have undertaken to sponsor their education till college. Currently they are in grade six. I am a self made man and wasnt born with a silver spoon. I was badly affected by the reservation policy, read 69% reservation, in Tamil Nadu. And you guys think I am traitor. What can I say ?
>>
hot FORD ESCAPE XLT-SPORT
hiralal
06-04 09:19 PM
now that we have 13 pages of discussion ..can we agree on something and start small campaigns atleast ???
that way we can generate more interest in IV.
we can do something indirect too ..such as contacting your realtors ..show interest in buying and then back off ..the advantage in this (if large number of people take part and each contact 4-5 realtors) ..then we will have someone else lobbying for us (rather than ourselves beating our own drum)
if someone has better idea then we can go for that too
that way we can generate more interest in IV.
we can do something indirect too ..such as contacting your realtors ..show interest in buying and then back off ..the advantage in this (if large number of people take part and each contact 4-5 realtors) ..then we will have someone else lobbying for us (rather than ourselves beating our own drum)
if someone has better idea then we can go for that too
more...
house 2005 Ford Escape XLT Sport
sledge_hammer
02-16 08:27 AM
Great find!
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
tattoo 2007 Ford Fusion SEL Sedan 4D
NNReddy
09-04 01:29 AM
True_facts, you cannot denigrate dead people. I know you are coward, because you cant say what you can say with your own ID. Go to every village in AP, people are better off now than 5 years ago,that's YSR's legacy. YSR improved irrigation, infrastructure across state and percapita income in state.
more...
pictures 2009 Ford Escape XLT Sport
royus77
06-28 05:16 PM
the cycle for visa exhaustion has to happen before USCIS triggers action....its just not how many applications showed up on their door...
Its all theory ...Do you have any explanation why they rejected for the " Other workers" in june period
Its all theory ...Do you have any explanation why they rejected for the " Other workers" in june period
dresses Ford Escape XLT Sport Utility
NolaIndian32
09-22 03:55 PM
Hi Samay,
I would like to maintain my current H1b status (2nd three-year extension period; I have the approval notice but the visa is not stamped in my passport). I would like to travel to India and return using the Advance Parole document with just my H1b extension approval notice (only first H1b is stamped in the passport).
1. Can I do this?
2. Will this change my status from H1b to AOS? When I return from my visit to India, I would like to continue working on my H1b with my current employer. I have not applied for the EAD.
Please advise.
Thanks so much!
I would like to maintain my current H1b status (2nd three-year extension period; I have the approval notice but the visa is not stamped in my passport). I would like to travel to India and return using the Advance Parole document with just my H1b extension approval notice (only first H1b is stamped in the passport).
1. Can I do this?
2. Will this change my status from H1b to AOS? When I return from my visit to India, I would like to continue working on my H1b with my current employer. I have not applied for the EAD.
Please advise.
Thanks so much!
more...
makeup 2010 Ford Escape XLT Sport
sachug22
10-07 05:10 PM
Sachug, it is a great attempt to compare the quarterly and annual spill overs. I made rough calculations couple of weeks ago with annual spill over. However, I assumed around 25K ROW visas(both pending and new) for EB2. And assumed only aroudn 125K for AOS keeping 15K for CP. I will compile all of my assumptions and post here. Overall, my calcs estimated EB2 move to Dec 2006. By the way, I hope you took China in to consideration for spill over.
My numbers
EB1 all - 17K
EB2 ROW - 22K
EB2-I 30K
EB2-C 9K
EB3 all - 40K
EB4 all - 7K
EB5 all - 7K
CP - 8K
I am assuming zero spill over from family category and lower CP numbers (no retrogress country applicant will wait for CP and new applications are low)
My numbers
EB1 all - 17K
EB2 ROW - 22K
EB2-I 30K
EB2-C 9K
EB3 all - 40K
EB4 all - 7K
EB5 all - 7K
CP - 8K
I am assuming zero spill over from family category and lower CP numbers (no retrogress country applicant will wait for CP and new applications are low)
girlfriend LAMPS ford 2007 ford escape
jhaalaa
01-13 02:49 PM
When folks transfer to a new employers using AC21 (where AC21 is otherwise valid) -
0. NOT APPLICABLE: for folks who only use the EAD for the AC21 and do not use H1 transfer.
1. OK: for folks where you work directly for the new H1 transfer sponsor.
2. DIFFICULT: When H1 transfer using AC21 is sought from a sponsor just to meet AC21 criteria, while one works as a consultant.
AC21 Beware - is specially meant for those wishing to seek AC21 from a small consulting company - because finding some big employer who would presently write a job description in the offer letter to match the criteria ("same or similar") that was advertised for the Labor certificate underlying a I-485 petition that has been pending 7 or more years back does not seem very practical.
_______________________________
In general, for folks on H1 or those planning to get one -
A. Folks who work directly for the H1 sponsors are OK.
B. With this memo, meeting 'Employee-Employer relationship' shall become tougher to prove for small and specially third party consulting company employees who work elsewhere and for an unrelated (to what is stated on the LCA petition used for the H1) client.
It does not mean that its all going to be dark for all with no hope.
Just that, keeping all necessary documentation, proof of communication of work, duties, progress, status, performance assessments, time sheets, documented business processes, projects related documentation, client-vendor communication, service agreements, etc shall become very tedious for small consulting businesses.
Best Wishes for all
0. NOT APPLICABLE: for folks who only use the EAD for the AC21 and do not use H1 transfer.
1. OK: for folks where you work directly for the new H1 transfer sponsor.
2. DIFFICULT: When H1 transfer using AC21 is sought from a sponsor just to meet AC21 criteria, while one works as a consultant.
AC21 Beware - is specially meant for those wishing to seek AC21 from a small consulting company - because finding some big employer who would presently write a job description in the offer letter to match the criteria ("same or similar") that was advertised for the Labor certificate underlying a I-485 petition that has been pending 7 or more years back does not seem very practical.
_______________________________
In general, for folks on H1 or those planning to get one -
A. Folks who work directly for the H1 sponsors are OK.
B. With this memo, meeting 'Employee-Employer relationship' shall become tougher to prove for small and specially third party consulting company employees who work elsewhere and for an unrelated (to what is stated on the LCA petition used for the H1) client.
It does not mean that its all going to be dark for all with no hope.
Just that, keeping all necessary documentation, proof of communication of work, duties, progress, status, performance assessments, time sheets, documented business processes, projects related documentation, client-vendor communication, service agreements, etc shall become very tedious for small consulting businesses.
Best Wishes for all
hairstyles 2011 Ford Escape XLT Sport
nomi
09-29 11:00 AM
I got my Canadian PR and I have to land before 3/12/2007. My H1 B VISA STAMP expired on
8/30/2006. I got approval from another three years from USCIS but I need to go for visa stamping. I don`t want to go for US Visa stamping coz last time it took my one month for all background checks. I am avoiding for US Visa Stamping but I want to land in Canada in order to secure my Canadian PR.So any I use automatic revalidation provision of 22 CFR � 41.112(d) and come back with valid I-94 and without H1 B visa stamp from US consulate
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1441.html#
Any one can help or guide me what is safe to do ?
Thanks
8/30/2006. I got approval from another three years from USCIS but I need to go for visa stamping. I don`t want to go for US Visa stamping coz last time it took my one month for all background checks. I am avoiding for US Visa Stamping but I want to land in Canada in order to secure my Canadian PR.So any I use automatic revalidation provision of 22 CFR � 41.112(d) and come back with valid I-94 and without H1 B visa stamp from US consulate
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1441.html#
Any one can help or guide me what is safe to do ?
Thanks
alwayson
03-14 09:34 AM
I did my Candian PR through this firm
http://www.canadavisa.com/
Very professional. Timely communication.
http://www.canadavisa.com/
Very professional. Timely communication.
alterego
12-14 01:33 PM
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
This is exactly correct. It is not the question of right or wrong here. That is what gets folks so upset on this thread, they feel since their viewpoint s right then.......... Most neutral observers like mbartosik can see this as unjust and there may be many in the US as well, however certainly not the majority. However, there are many ways in which this could backfire. One example is the recently seen debate over illegal immigration and the turn in public sentiment. Truth be told, if someone did something wrong 12 yrs ago(crossed the fence), now is married to a US citizen and has 3 US children, what do you do with them? What about the 3yr old who was brought to the USA by their parents and knows no other system? Perhaps a few years ago joe public would have given them a pass, no more, the debate has become so nasty that positions have been hardened to the point that reason does not prevail. Another reason has something to do with the perceived sense of entitlement Americans sensed in the illegal immigrant community(of course fanned by Lou Dobbs and his ilk). These are complex issues and generally you will get a lot further appealing to someones sense of fairness than explaining how you are entitled to something and will take it from them if it is not given to you.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
This is exactly correct. It is not the question of right or wrong here. That is what gets folks so upset on this thread, they feel since their viewpoint s right then.......... Most neutral observers like mbartosik can see this as unjust and there may be many in the US as well, however certainly not the majority. However, there are many ways in which this could backfire. One example is the recently seen debate over illegal immigration and the turn in public sentiment. Truth be told, if someone did something wrong 12 yrs ago(crossed the fence), now is married to a US citizen and has 3 US children, what do you do with them? What about the 3yr old who was brought to the USA by their parents and knows no other system? Perhaps a few years ago joe public would have given them a pass, no more, the debate has become so nasty that positions have been hardened to the point that reason does not prevail. Another reason has something to do with the perceived sense of entitlement Americans sensed in the illegal immigrant community(of course fanned by Lou Dobbs and his ilk). These are complex issues and generally you will get a lot further appealing to someones sense of fairness than explaining how you are entitled to something and will take it from them if it is not given to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment