AVAKIL10
08-03 08:40 AM
It does look confusing though..Odd.
wallpaper *Singer/dancer Ciara
yabadaba
07-23 09:52 AM
ne thots from core?
FinalGC
11-06 11:43 AM
Here is a crutch for you.
You have an employee agreement which says that you will be paid health benefits. All you need to tell your Company A (if he comes after you), that you will report them to USCIS that you have exploited him and gave the wrong information before joining the company. This will prevent any desi..staffing company to advance to you, since all their future H1's will be heavily scrutinized and possibly his company will be shut down. He will have his own battle with USCIS. This will prevent him to come after you.
If I were you, I would have all kinds of written emails and documents ready for me to show the old employer that you have proof that the old employer was exploiting you.....I am sure you can come up with tons of things, like not paying on bench. Don't ever talk such matter, always write emails and ask feedback.
Email trails are the best way to keep all these staffing and desi companies at bay and prevent them from exploiting employees......I am speaking from experience buddy.....I had one guy after me and being a PM, by profession I saved all such email trails and he knew that. When I left him he gave me back the $11K, that he had taken from me illegally.
Yes, it is a good idea to spend 100-200 bucks with a reputed attorney like Murthy or Khanna or Shusterman to check your status before you jump. This will give you additional confidence to jump ship.
I get sad and angry at these desi employers who exploit their employees....I am sure some day they will reap what they have harvested....tears and pain of these exploited employees.....
My suggestion to my fellow colleagues is...those of have gone through this struggle...please do not become like them when you too come out of this GC maze.....
You have an employee agreement which says that you will be paid health benefits. All you need to tell your Company A (if he comes after you), that you will report them to USCIS that you have exploited him and gave the wrong information before joining the company. This will prevent any desi..staffing company to advance to you, since all their future H1's will be heavily scrutinized and possibly his company will be shut down. He will have his own battle with USCIS. This will prevent him to come after you.
If I were you, I would have all kinds of written emails and documents ready for me to show the old employer that you have proof that the old employer was exploiting you.....I am sure you can come up with tons of things, like not paying on bench. Don't ever talk such matter, always write emails and ask feedback.
Email trails are the best way to keep all these staffing and desi companies at bay and prevent them from exploiting employees......I am speaking from experience buddy.....I had one guy after me and being a PM, by profession I saved all such email trails and he knew that. When I left him he gave me back the $11K, that he had taken from me illegally.
Yes, it is a good idea to spend 100-200 bucks with a reputed attorney like Murthy or Khanna or Shusterman to check your status before you jump. This will give you additional confidence to jump ship.
I get sad and angry at these desi employers who exploit their employees....I am sure some day they will reap what they have harvested....tears and pain of these exploited employees.....
My suggestion to my fellow colleagues is...those of have gone through this struggle...please do not become like them when you too come out of this GC maze.....
2011 CIARA - tekstovi
blizkreeg
01-26 12:44 PM
Seriously, who cares that Andhra bagged 7 ranks. How on earth is it relevant to the discussion going on here? Plus this isn't a forum for Indians only(and I'm Indian).
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
more...
poorslumdog
09-04 12:20 PM
Guys,
Here is the list of people who recently died in my village. Let us all pray for their soul to rest in peace. Please understand that when we can pray for YSR..we can do for these people also. Every life has the same value...dont you agree..
1. xxxxxxxxx
2. yyyyyyyyy
3. zzzzzzzzz
Please all do pray for the poor souls. From today onwords I will post all the dead people list in IV and let us all pray for them. Thanks for your support and prayer. Please let your freinds and family know about this and ask them to join in our prayer. Once again thanks guys.
You are more than welcome to give red dots.
Edited Note: I am really frustrated to see how you people interpreted this post. I am not from AP or any of those poor souls. In fact they do not even know who is YSR. They all died due natural cause and age. They are all more than eighty years old. I was trying to emphasis, in this forum we do not need to discuss about YSR. He might be a beloved leader for someone and corrupt for others. Whatever may be the case take your discussion to the relevant place. The reason I started this thread to emphasis that there are lot of people dying across the country and around the world and we do not need to hold prayer for every one or they poor souls are not different from YSR and they also deserve to be remembered in our prayers. But you highly educated folks did not understand that and gave more reds or am I not presenting it properly...?
Here is the list of people who recently died in my village. Let us all pray for their soul to rest in peace. Please understand that when we can pray for YSR..we can do for these people also. Every life has the same value...dont you agree..
1. xxxxxxxxx
2. yyyyyyyyy
3. zzzzzzzzz
Please all do pray for the poor souls. From today onwords I will post all the dead people list in IV and let us all pray for them. Thanks for your support and prayer. Please let your freinds and family know about this and ask them to join in our prayer. Once again thanks guys.
You are more than welcome to give red dots.
Edited Note: I am really frustrated to see how you people interpreted this post. I am not from AP or any of those poor souls. In fact they do not even know who is YSR. They all died due natural cause and age. They are all more than eighty years old. I was trying to emphasis, in this forum we do not need to discuss about YSR. He might be a beloved leader for someone and corrupt for others. Whatever may be the case take your discussion to the relevant place. The reason I started this thread to emphasis that there are lot of people dying across the country and around the world and we do not need to hold prayer for every one or they poor souls are not different from YSR and they also deserve to be remembered in our prayers. But you highly educated folks did not understand that and gave more reds or am I not presenting it properly...?
dan19
10-18 12:22 PM
One of my friends got a similar one. In that case the DOL pointed to one another candidate(say Mr.A's) who applied for the same job, and was more qualified than my friend in terms of years of experience. The DOL asked why Mr.A wasn't hired.
My friend's company sent a new letter to Mr.A asking whether he was still available. Mr.A did not reply back.
Since Mr.A did not reply back, the company understood that Mr.A is no longer interested in the job.
The company then sent back the rebuttal stating the new efforts made.
The DOL then approved:) the case.
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department’s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750’s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750’s. The other set of 750’s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750’s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750’s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer’s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
My friend's company sent a new letter to Mr.A asking whether he was still available. Mr.A did not reply back.
Since Mr.A did not reply back, the company understood that Mr.A is no longer interested in the job.
The company then sent back the rebuttal stating the new efforts made.
The DOL then approved:) the case.
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department’s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750’s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750’s. The other set of 750’s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750’s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750’s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer’s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
more...
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
2010 Ciara and her Cynths
pappu
07-14 10:18 AM
Nobody knows much about when Skil bill will be debated. Webfaxes are a means to influence lawmakers to bring this to the floor of the house. Independent analaysis by a lawfirm based on collection of information from various sources indicates the chance that some business backed bill for high skilled immigrants will be passed this year. There is a 45% chance that it will get passed early next year. You can view details on this link.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
more...
wandmaker
02-26 04:37 PM
10 days back My employer called me and asked provide some more documents , so that they can appeal to USCIS....
I was working on getting those documents, I was in constant touch with my employer...
two days back , he suddenly called me and said that as amandment is denied I have to leave US with in next two weeks and they don't want to appeal against the RFE denyl
If you call a nurse help line and tell them that "my kid living farfaraway city, he is sick, what options do I have to make him recover?" - The answer would be take him to a doctor. Same analogy applies here, Just mentioning 'some more document', 'doubts', 'working on getting those documents' does not give any of us the big picture. Consult an attorney and decide your course of action.
I was working on getting those documents, I was in constant touch with my employer...
two days back , he suddenly called me and said that as amandment is denied I have to leave US with in next two weeks and they don't want to appeal against the RFE denyl
If you call a nurse help line and tell them that "my kid living farfaraway city, he is sick, what options do I have to make him recover?" - The answer would be take him to a doctor. Same analogy applies here, Just mentioning 'some more document', 'doubts', 'working on getting those documents' does not give any of us the big picture. Consult an attorney and decide your course of action.
hair Ciara Named One of People
summitpointe
06-13 04:04 PM
Good job.
more...
belmontboy
07-31 01:04 PM
I would like to know what are the primary reasons why employers revokes approved I-140 after invoking AC21 after 180 days.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
hot A Beautiful Ciara For May 2009
perm2gc
12-22 06:08 PM
Efren Hernandez III, Director of the Business and Trade Services Branch at INS in Washington, D.C. announced in late December 2001 that the INS does not recognize or provide any "grace period" for maintaining status after employment termination. Mr. Hernandez explained this strict interpretation by reasoning that there is no difference between H1B holders and other non-immigrants, like students, to justify a stay in the U.S. beyond the explicit purpose of their admission. Mr. Hernandez admits that this may cause hardship to some terminated or laid off H1B workers, but believes that the INS position is legally justified.
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
more...
house about Ciara#39;s comicbook
new_horizon
04-22 09:56 PM
I think this banned person was only against the illegal people here. He/she mentioned that US should not welcome uneducated poor people who would be a drain on the US resources. But what he means is that US should welcome educated people like us who have contributed tremendously to the US economy. I think he's somewhat aware of the differences between illegals and legals.
tattoo CIARA#39;S FRENCH MAGAZINE PHOTO
paskal
04-09 08:38 PM
once you use EAD- for fellowship
you cannot be on an H1 from moonlighting.
if your wife is with a reputable firm, i would imagine the risk is low with an approved 140
i would ask a good attorney though.
you cannot be on an H1 from moonlighting.
if your wife is with a reputable firm, i would imagine the risk is low with an approved 140
i would ask a good attorney though.
more...
pictures Miss “Pretty Girl Swag” Ciara
bmoni
12-21 09:34 AM
We have Missouri State Chapter. Please check the state chapters section. show your support. I like the idea of midwest Conference call. I will be dialing in.
dresses Somebody throw Ciara a
cox
November 25th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Yeah, the DoF was insufficient, and that also made focusing difficult. The flower movement was irritating, and I need to learn to deal with that. I'm just getting started here. It seems that the reaction to the dark/light treatment is pretty split, maybe a little in favor of the light. I had two very different days lighting-wise, and got these contrasing shots. I kind of lean to the dark one, but they each have a different personality.
Gary, thanks for the tips. I was having a terrible time with the flower movement. I was on a tripod, remote shutter, 2.5x eyepiece and couldn't get the image crisp at smaller aperture. I finally figured out that it was small flower movements that were killing me. I moved to shallower DoF to get a faster shutter. Do you have any tips for holding the plant steady? You have some incredible shots, and must have come up with some techniques for immobilizing the flower without it showing up in the photo. I'd be grateful if you could share...
Gary, thanks for the tips. I was having a terrible time with the flower movement. I was on a tripod, remote shutter, 2.5x eyepiece and couldn't get the image crisp at smaller aperture. I finally figured out that it was small flower movements that were killing me. I moved to shallower DoF to get a faster shutter. Do you have any tips for holding the plant steady? You have some incredible shots, and must have come up with some techniques for immobilizing the flower without it showing up in the photo. I'd be grateful if you could share...
more...
makeup Ciara
shreekarthik
06-08 05:57 PM
Guys,
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
in case of spouses having different nationality, we can flip the primary applicant and are not mis-matching the priority dates. So if ur wife is from a non-retro country her PD is still going JAN 2006 but since she is from non-retro she has greater chance of success.
But here u want ur priority date to be applied to your spouse application and that's not legally possible. As the other poster says u can try PERM for EB2 and xfer ur old PD to the new PERM.
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
in case of spouses having different nationality, we can flip the primary applicant and are not mis-matching the priority dates. So if ur wife is from a non-retro country her PD is still going JAN 2006 but since she is from non-retro she has greater chance of success.
But here u want ur priority date to be applied to your spouse application and that's not legally possible. As the other poster says u can try PERM for EB2 and xfer ur old PD to the new PERM.
girlfriend Ramp;B singer, Ciara, has inked
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 01:09 PM
Isnt all that in picture only when you are travelling outside ?
hairstyles DOWNLOAD Ciara feat.
Vet04
12-08 11:53 AM
I have been in USA Since 2003.
I started the GC process in 2004, started the process again, recaptured old PD. Was hoping to get GC this year when my PD was current for 2 months. Hope will get it this year.
After moving I saw lots of engineer,mostly software, seemed happy with jobs. Started doing some search and found that this is one of the least stressful jobs in US with great salary and growth potential. Thanks for the views guys, would like to know if can do MS with a bachelors in non engineering field.
I started the GC process in 2004, started the process again, recaptured old PD. Was hoping to get GC this year when my PD was current for 2 months. Hope will get it this year.
After moving I saw lots of engineer,mostly software, seemed happy with jobs. Started doing some search and found that this is one of the least stressful jobs in US with great salary and growth potential. Thanks for the views guys, would like to know if can do MS with a bachelors in non engineering field.
blizkreeg
01-26 12:44 PM
Seriously, who cares that Andhra bagged 7 ranks. How on earth is it relevant to the discussion going on here? Plus this isn't a forum for Indians only(and I'm Indian).
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
bach007
11-27 01:35 PM
Originals of these have to be mailed first right? Do we need to carry copies of these on day of interview????
No comments:
Post a Comment