ajay
02-10 10:14 AM
US experience won't count much unless you are from fortune 500 company. These days anyone even with Aptech certificate can get a chance to come and work in USA on L visa for short assignments. So if your experience is in a desi consulting firm, I do not think your resume will be attractive.
The figures shown are all looking good for experienced people in good companies. But it is not easy to get jobs as senior people in top companies. Also remember you have to work much more than you work here. You also have to work on Saturdays in a lot of companies. If your clients are in USA you may also need work in the night too to interact with your people in USA. Also remember in small companies you rarely get to do cutting edge world class work or new idea or planning. You will hardly learn or get special trainings.
Grass is always green on the other side
I was reading this thread and found something that I haven't found here also. In US also I haven't found any companies give much exposure to consultants for world class work or new idea or planning. I also haven't found any companies that provide special training to the consultants.
Fortune 500 companies may be an exception though from the above.
What I feel is it all depends on the individual how much of exposure one can get regardless where s/he is working. Technology is seamless and it is available from anywhere.
The figures shown are all looking good for experienced people in good companies. But it is not easy to get jobs as senior people in top companies. Also remember you have to work much more than you work here. You also have to work on Saturdays in a lot of companies. If your clients are in USA you may also need work in the night too to interact with your people in USA. Also remember in small companies you rarely get to do cutting edge world class work or new idea or planning. You will hardly learn or get special trainings.
Grass is always green on the other side
I was reading this thread and found something that I haven't found here also. In US also I haven't found any companies give much exposure to consultants for world class work or new idea or planning. I also haven't found any companies that provide special training to the consultants.
Fortune 500 companies may be an exception though from the above.
What I feel is it all depends on the individual how much of exposure one can get regardless where s/he is working. Technology is seamless and it is available from anywhere.
royus77
09-22 08:17 PM
As long as greedy corporations like microsoft exist noting will happen to H1B program..its the economy that's it ..once it start moving up h1b will become l1b and the import of cheap labor starts once again .....you guys are just spreading fear nothing else ....
CrazyWorld
08-04 05:42 PM
I don't have A# on my approved I-140.
My I-140 got approved in Jun 06.
May be they started adding A#'s after Jun 06 OR they include A#'s only for concurrent filers.
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
My I-140 got approved in Jun 06.
May be they started adding A#'s after Jun 06 OR they include A#'s only for concurrent filers.
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
MatsP
June 7th, 2005, 02:21 AM
These are all good suggestions and translate well from my film days. I also read that, whereas in b&w the adage was expose for the shadows and develop (or print) for highlights, in digital it is the reverse - expose to preserve detail in the highlights and then use your curves in RAW to fix the shadows where you want them. So I'll have to put all that to work this week / weekend. If the flowers stay around, that is.
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. The b&w film is probably much more tolerant to overexposure than the sensor, same as colour film, you can overexpose several stops, and as long as you compensate in the printing phase. Not so with digital cameras, they can tolerate only a very mild case of overexposure. In RAW it's a little bit more tolerant than if you use JPG in the camera, but only because the most fine details in the highlight is lost when converting from internal RAW pixels to 8-bit pixels for the JPG. Also consider that the lost information is actually just the last few bits, so when multiplied up to show a decent image, you'd still get a pretty sketchy result.
I'd also like to concur with Josh about the sensitivity: the range that the sensor can accept intense light is pretty much the same for all DSLR's for the same generation. You'll just have to live with it, compensate for it and wait for the next generation of sensors that are more tolerant... ;-)
--
Mats
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. The b&w film is probably much more tolerant to overexposure than the sensor, same as colour film, you can overexpose several stops, and as long as you compensate in the printing phase. Not so with digital cameras, they can tolerate only a very mild case of overexposure. In RAW it's a little bit more tolerant than if you use JPG in the camera, but only because the most fine details in the highlight is lost when converting from internal RAW pixels to 8-bit pixels for the JPG. Also consider that the lost information is actually just the last few bits, so when multiplied up to show a decent image, you'd still get a pretty sketchy result.
I'd also like to concur with Josh about the sensitivity: the range that the sensor can accept intense light is pretty much the same for all DSLR's for the same generation. You'll just have to live with it, compensate for it and wait for the next generation of sensors that are more tolerant... ;-)
--
Mats
more...
walking_dude
11-25 06:01 PM
To all IV members (and others), who have decided not to participate in the rally due to various reasons, I request you to give a very serious thought, and consideration, before reaching the final decision.
It's highly critical that we do this Rally and/or Lobby Day before CIR 2009 is introduced. If we miss the CIR next year, it may be difficult to get any relief to our community for many years. I agree with you that times are tough. But if we don't act now, it'll keep getting tougher & tougher.
I don't live near DC, and if you are too, understand where you are coming from. However, there is still several months time for the planned rally. If you book in advance, you should be able to lock-in a lower airfare on a budget airline. It may be a good idea to cash-in any Frequent flyer miles etc. you might be having ( I'm just throwing ideas here)
Get in touch with your State chapter or nearest state active chapter. If enough members like you step forward, you guys can sponsor a few members willing to participate.
If you still think you can't, please pledge or contribute donations/contributions for the planned Rally. If enough members like you, step forward IV may be to sponsor some members willing to participate, but can't due to economic hardship (out of job etc.) IV would also need funds to organize an event of this magnitude, to advertise it and arrange it.
If you decide to contribute now, you can do so by clicking the 'Contribute' option on the Homepage. If you decide to pledge, please post your pledge of support here.
I am confident that we will make it a success with your support.
It's highly critical that we do this Rally and/or Lobby Day before CIR 2009 is introduced. If we miss the CIR next year, it may be difficult to get any relief to our community for many years. I agree with you that times are tough. But if we don't act now, it'll keep getting tougher & tougher.
I don't live near DC, and if you are too, understand where you are coming from. However, there is still several months time for the planned rally. If you book in advance, you should be able to lock-in a lower airfare on a budget airline. It may be a good idea to cash-in any Frequent flyer miles etc. you might be having ( I'm just throwing ideas here)
Get in touch with your State chapter or nearest state active chapter. If enough members like you step forward, you guys can sponsor a few members willing to participate.
If you still think you can't, please pledge or contribute donations/contributions for the planned Rally. If enough members like you, step forward IV may be to sponsor some members willing to participate, but can't due to economic hardship (out of job etc.) IV would also need funds to organize an event of this magnitude, to advertise it and arrange it.
If you decide to contribute now, you can do so by clicking the 'Contribute' option on the Homepage. If you decide to pledge, please post your pledge of support here.
I am confident that we will make it a success with your support.
immieb2
10-14 09:04 AM
I went to the Chennai consulate in July 2008 with blue jeans and bright colored T shirt and I got my H1 visa stamped. No issues. But I sure felt like the odd man out there, NO ONE else was wearing a jeans and shirt. At the interview she asked me how is the weather in Michigan, that's about it..
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
more...
vxg
09-03 01:43 PM
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
Will add companionship i am at TSC with an EAC receipt no and still waiting wherein i see that they are approving cases with Dec 04 priority while folks with Jul 04 are still waiting. The RD and ND is useless too as i am seeing aprovals for folks who mailed there apps after me one guy posted on IV that he filed I-485 in 2008 with Dec 04 PD and got approval. This seems like last year where they completely ignored 2004 folks and approved 2005 and 2006 cases. I do not have much hope this month either.
Will add companionship i am at TSC with an EAC receipt no and still waiting wherein i see that they are approving cases with Dec 04 priority while folks with Jul 04 are still waiting. The RD and ND is useless too as i am seeing aprovals for folks who mailed there apps after me one guy posted on IV that he filed I-485 in 2008 with Dec 04 PD and got approval. This seems like last year where they completely ignored 2004 folks and approved 2005 and 2006 cases. I do not have much hope this month either.
mps
06-04 11:26 AM
I had used 6 months of previous bank statement (original) and had mentioned the same in the letter written to consulate officer.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
more...
sabr
09-18 04:44 PM
But if I get out of US and get back with H1b stamping will then I can start again with my current company as H1b while I wil work with EAD for another company full time?
insbaby
01-08 05:18 AM
Thanks Sanjay02.
Another follow-up question.. I'm planning to file for EAD, which passport number should I use in this form ?
If I use new one(which is valid), isn't it in contra with AOS application?
Has anyone faced this situation ?
At the time of filing anything, give what is current.
USCIS knows this issue and thats the reason, they don't keep passport as a parameter in decision making, except a rule that it should be valid for n months while you file an application.
Plus, when you get a renewed passport, in the last page, your old passport number and file number are written in the "comments/notes" column to help officers to refer the old links.
Another follow-up question.. I'm planning to file for EAD, which passport number should I use in this form ?
If I use new one(which is valid), isn't it in contra with AOS application?
Has anyone faced this situation ?
At the time of filing anything, give what is current.
USCIS knows this issue and thats the reason, they don't keep passport as a parameter in decision making, except a rule that it should be valid for n months while you file an application.
Plus, when you get a renewed passport, in the last page, your old passport number and file number are written in the "comments/notes" column to help officers to refer the old links.
more...
njboy
09-25 05:27 PM
venky is right..find out why it was rejected..im sure an rfe was requested..right? did you finish your MS by april?
however, venky, your suggestions are not very sound..did you hear that that h1 quota is over? how can his future employer file for him? he can only start working oct 08 earliest
however, venky, your suggestions are not very sound..did you hear that that h1 quota is over? how can his future employer file for him? he can only start working oct 08 earliest
leoindiano
03-17 10:02 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
more...
ruchigup
08-22 03:22 PM
As stated earlier go for your own lawyer.
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
psk79
10-15 01:10 PM
Is this her first time into US? if so, i guess they are trying to make sure your h1b is still valid. Since they see that you entered on AP, it might be confusing them. I am assuming you work for the same h1 employer who also sponsored your GC. Now all attorneys have told us that the law says you can resume your h1b once you are back on AP but lot of IO's don't care about it. Now you can just send an employer/personal letter stating that you are currently in the same job for which your H1 is approved and also have a I140 pending/approved for the same. Mention that you are still on H1b while you entered using your AP. Hence you never got your H1b visa stamped at the consulate. It shouldn't be a problem unless you are trying to get H$4 via a H1b from a former employer while you are working on EAD for someone else.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
perm2gc
10-27 07:09 PM
I have applied for my H1B extension in july and got the approval in Aug...:D
more...
jvs_annapurna
04-12 03:13 PM
Ya, it is my first extension
sent RFE asking that Client letter on the original letter head.
which I couldnt get, but sent the vendor letter stating my duties and date from which started working etc even the copy of the client badge with photo on it is attached in reply to RFE.
But Its denied thats is not enough to prove that you are working at that client place and location. and it seems the employer i.e my h1 company is just token employer.
but I know the clock started from 31st march am in out of status.
will i able wipe out out of status as it effect in future ?
does MTR works or do I need to the appeal ?
What are chances of my transfer ?
Please gurus advise?
Thanks
jvs
sent RFE asking that Client letter on the original letter head.
which I couldnt get, but sent the vendor letter stating my duties and date from which started working etc even the copy of the client badge with photo on it is attached in reply to RFE.
But Its denied thats is not enough to prove that you are working at that client place and location. and it seems the employer i.e my h1 company is just token employer.
but I know the clock started from 31st march am in out of status.
will i able wipe out out of status as it effect in future ?
does MTR works or do I need to the appeal ?
What are chances of my transfer ?
Please gurus advise?
Thanks
jvs
123456mg
07-20 03:32 AM
Immigration attorneys normally send more than required documents to avoid getting RFEs later on. In this case, the reason people send W-2s (though it is not mandated) and tax returns is to show that you were working and were making approximately equal amount that was mentioned on you H-1B LCA.
Asking for W-2 or tax returns are within the powers of AOS adjudicator and s/he can raise an RFE for such "discretionary evidence".
The tax returns prove that you did not have any other source of income (that directly contradicts your H-1B compliance) and thus you were not employed on another part-time job or any other business of that fashion and complied to the terms of H-1B rules.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do. Also, if you had any other form(s) of income (like some people use to make money in day trading and that forms their additional income), it will be wiser not to send your income tax returns and create additonal issues.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 and income tax statements from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
Asking for W-2 or tax returns are within the powers of AOS adjudicator and s/he can raise an RFE for such "discretionary evidence".
The tax returns prove that you did not have any other source of income (that directly contradicts your H-1B compliance) and thus you were not employed on another part-time job or any other business of that fashion and complied to the terms of H-1B rules.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do. Also, if you had any other form(s) of income (like some people use to make money in day trading and that forms their additional income), it will be wiser not to send your income tax returns and create additonal issues.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 and income tax statements from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
mchundi
02-14 07:42 PM
It is almost 3-4 months for me tracking the progress of S-1932 and the comprehensive immigration reform process. I know some of u here have been lobbying for this even longer.
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
amitjoey
03-18 04:24 PM
Hello
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
My I140 has been pending for a long time too, without any reason. So finally after many service requests, I have talked to one of the senators of my state. I have explained the situation, ofcourse used the opportunity to highlight IV and EB immigrants problems and then talked about my specific case. There is a routine paperwork that my senators office has that they use to get authorisation from individuals like us to pursue the case with the USCIS. I have filled that paperwork and the request to look into my case. I have a strong notion that it is going to work. The senators office had looked into an earlier case for me with success where I needed to obtain a pending AP in a hurry. I have my own labor (NO Substitute)
I have no idea what the deal is with the H1- Why it was denied.
I suggest you talk to your senator's office.
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
My I140 has been pending for a long time too, without any reason. So finally after many service requests, I have talked to one of the senators of my state. I have explained the situation, ofcourse used the opportunity to highlight IV and EB immigrants problems and then talked about my specific case. There is a routine paperwork that my senators office has that they use to get authorisation from individuals like us to pursue the case with the USCIS. I have filled that paperwork and the request to look into my case. I have a strong notion that it is going to work. The senators office had looked into an earlier case for me with success where I needed to obtain a pending AP in a hurry. I have my own labor (NO Substitute)
I have no idea what the deal is with the H1- Why it was denied.
I suggest you talk to your senator's office.
gconmymind
06-02 01:09 PM
If you use your EAD, your wife will need to maintain her own status like L1, H1, F1, etc. There is no dependent status on EAD (like H4 for H1).
No comments:
Post a Comment