walking_dude
10-19 01:37 PM
We have E-mailed 800+ IV members who have indicated they're from Michigan, Called some 30+.
We have got good response. We'll know the exact numbers when we meet. Confirmed members may not show up, others may change their mind at the last moment and just drop by. It's hard to predict right now.
A lot of members are interested in "Knowing" what we are doing. Best way to know is "Participate". By attending the meeting you're getting added to the "MI chapter circle of trust" - that is members we feel safe in passing on sensitive and confidential info we get from IV core. We also feel it safe to pass on information about activities covered by IV Non-disclosure policy such as Lawmaker meetings and responses we get, with members we have met personally, talked and know their background. Posting such sensitive info here or on the google groups is not possible as it will be picked up by anti-immigrants trolling IV for such info.
Bottomline : Anybody missing the meeting is missing the opportunity to have access to IV "insider information" which will never be made public to people outside the "trusted circle".
Worst case, even if around 20 guys show up, it's a great start as I've heard that some chapters started of with 5-10 people and now have 100+ members. Don't worry, we will get there.
This is Ashish from Canton, MI. Will surely meet you guyz tomorrow. So, finally how many people, WD?
We have got good response. We'll know the exact numbers when we meet. Confirmed members may not show up, others may change their mind at the last moment and just drop by. It's hard to predict right now.
A lot of members are interested in "Knowing" what we are doing. Best way to know is "Participate". By attending the meeting you're getting added to the "MI chapter circle of trust" - that is members we feel safe in passing on sensitive and confidential info we get from IV core. We also feel it safe to pass on information about activities covered by IV Non-disclosure policy such as Lawmaker meetings and responses we get, with members we have met personally, talked and know their background. Posting such sensitive info here or on the google groups is not possible as it will be picked up by anti-immigrants trolling IV for such info.
Bottomline : Anybody missing the meeting is missing the opportunity to have access to IV "insider information" which will never be made public to people outside the "trusted circle".
Worst case, even if around 20 guys show up, it's a great start as I've heard that some chapters started of with 5-10 people and now have 100+ members. Don't worry, we will get there.
This is Ashish from Canton, MI. Will surely meet you guyz tomorrow. So, finally how many people, WD?
anilsal
06-26 06:00 PM
I called the office and also got my better half to call. BTW I was locked out of the forum for a couple of weeks when after loggin in it was directing me to update my information. which I promptly did but it seems all the fields have meen made mandatory so it kept of directime me to put other information like when I applied for my I 485 which I haven't but I had to eventually put some garbage data. can some one look into this, I am sure there are a lot of other IV members being blocked out.
Thanks in Advance.
There is a sticky thread for this at the top.
Thanks in Advance.
There is a sticky thread for this at the top.
Legal
07-15 03:58 PM
pa_arora
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mheggade, ur calc looks good but with the exception of Level II, I think most of the people who got Labor with MS+0 (or +1...) will have Level II. my attorney applied MS+0 even though I was having 6 yrs of exp when I applied.
Do you have any thoughts on how many people could be in this category wage level II in EB-2 I?
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mheggade, ur calc looks good but with the exception of Level II, I think most of the people who got Labor with MS+0 (or +1...) will have Level II. my attorney applied MS+0 even though I was having 6 yrs of exp when I applied.
Do you have any thoughts on how many people could be in this category wage level II in EB-2 I?
gcpadmavyuh
04-26 12:04 PM
100$ today. paypal Receipt ID: 4AT89021DD156772R. Go IV Go. Let's get the visa numbers recaptured!
more...
eastindia
01-12 10:07 AM
Please refer to this link
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
Equal Employment Opportunity applies only to applicants who are eligible to apply for that job. It does NOT apply to immigrant visa allocation (aka I-485 approval).
If you don't agree with this, I would suggest spending $200 with an attorney to get initial consultation and get the answer to enlighten yourself.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree with you.
Country limits is a law. A court has to follow the law. Court does not decide if the law is fair or unfair.
If you want to change the law, go to congress.
BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY TO THROW AWAY TO LAWYERS.
And whats with big lawyer names? Just because a lawyer has a website and writes on a website, does not mean he is a big lawyer. Look beyond the marketing of lawyers and see their skills, track record and genuine concern for your long wait. You are asking the same lawyers to help you whose bread and butter comes because you are applicants in a long line.
Highly educated innocents!
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
Equal Employment Opportunity applies only to applicants who are eligible to apply for that job. It does NOT apply to immigrant visa allocation (aka I-485 approval).
If you don't agree with this, I would suggest spending $200 with an attorney to get initial consultation and get the answer to enlighten yourself.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree with you.
Country limits is a law. A court has to follow the law. Court does not decide if the law is fair or unfair.
If you want to change the law, go to congress.
BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY TO THROW AWAY TO LAWYERS.
And whats with big lawyer names? Just because a lawyer has a website and writes on a website, does not mean he is a big lawyer. Look beyond the marketing of lawyers and see their skills, track record and genuine concern for your long wait. You are asking the same lawyers to help you whose bread and butter comes because you are applicants in a long line.
Highly educated innocents!
lskreddy
06-26 12:08 PM
Lets do the best we can. If it does not work, we are no worse than where we already are.
A group of us just went to Lamar Smith's Austin District Office and detailed his liason about the bills, benefits and information about IV. She said she will have them Fedex'd today to their Washington office and keep us informed about congressman's stand.
A group of us just went to Lamar Smith's Austin District Office and detailed his liason about the bills, benefits and information about IV. She said she will have them Fedex'd today to their Washington office and keep us informed about congressman's stand.
more...
bluekayal
03-17 10:49 AM
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF EXISTING BACKLOGS.
(a) Family-Sponsored Immigrants- Section 201(c) (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants- The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(1) 480,000;
`(2) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year;
`(3) the difference between--
`(A) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 minus the number of visas issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(B) the number of visas calculated under subparagraph (A) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.'.
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 201(d) (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
`(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(A) 290,000;
`(B) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
`(C) the difference between--
`(i) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(ii) the number of visas calculated under clause (i) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.
`(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN- Immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).'.
SEC. 402. COUNTRY LIMITS.
Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `, (4), and (5)' and inserting `and (4)'; and
(B) by striking `7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent' and inserting `10 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 5 percent'; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5).
******
(a) Family-Sponsored Immigrants- Section 201(c) (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants- The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(1) 480,000;
`(2) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year;
`(3) the difference between--
`(A) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 minus the number of visas issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(B) the number of visas calculated under subparagraph (A) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.'.
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 201(d) (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
`(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(A) 290,000;
`(B) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
`(C) the difference between--
`(i) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(ii) the number of visas calculated under clause (i) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.
`(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN- Immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).'.
SEC. 402. COUNTRY LIMITS.
Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `, (4), and (5)' and inserting `and (4)'; and
(B) by striking `7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent' and inserting `10 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 5 percent'; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5).
******
dixie
12-01 06:55 PM
But I agree with Tito to some extent. Especially, if the degree is from even a slightly lower ranked school like Arizona or Northwestern, the returns are not there, and there is a great deal of evidence in that direction.
But it's still just my 2 cents.
Northwestern lowly ranked for MBA ? gotta be kidding. Kellogg School of business brushes shoulders with the very best including Wharton, MIT and Harvard.
But it's still just my 2 cents.
Northwestern lowly ranked for MBA ? gotta be kidding. Kellogg School of business brushes shoulders with the very best including Wharton, MIT and Harvard.
more...
akred
03-23 08:06 PM
Not sure what you mean by this...
I never said I agreed with country base quotas for EB. However; lawmakers, etc. are not stupid people. We have to try to understand why they are there and why it is not being changed. We have to understand the symptoms before you can find the cure.
Your argument is that the country quotas help limit nepotism and discrimination based on national origin. However, this is already prohibited under DOL rules if you look at form ETA-750A. Therefore, if this is happening, it means there is a failure in the labor certification system to prevent this type of discrimination. Also, nepotism is not all bad as the Clintons and Bushes have been demonstrating :D.
The country quota owes its origin and sustenance to deep national insecurities around race. It will change eventually as the makeup of the nation changes over time. In the short term we will see movement as the UK bumps up against the 7% limit.
I never said I agreed with country base quotas for EB. However; lawmakers, etc. are not stupid people. We have to try to understand why they are there and why it is not being changed. We have to understand the symptoms before you can find the cure.
Your argument is that the country quotas help limit nepotism and discrimination based on national origin. However, this is already prohibited under DOL rules if you look at form ETA-750A. Therefore, if this is happening, it means there is a failure in the labor certification system to prevent this type of discrimination. Also, nepotism is not all bad as the Clintons and Bushes have been demonstrating :D.
The country quota owes its origin and sustenance to deep national insecurities around race. It will change eventually as the makeup of the nation changes over time. In the short term we will see movement as the UK bumps up against the 7% limit.
sudmoni
02-13 03:34 PM
pmpforgc
I am a physician and have not heard doctors are included in Sch A category. I wish u were correct but unfortunately u are not.
I am a physician and have not heard doctors are included in Sch A category. I wish u were correct but unfortunately u are not.
more...
raju123
05-31 02:49 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22481 reported as follow:
Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in Senate Bill
1. Decimation of Employment-Based Immigration System: � Eliminates first, second, and third employment-based immigration categories. � �Merit-based" point system completely disconnects employment-based immigration from employers, who have only a negligible role in new system and are unable to sponsor specific employees for permanent residence. � No provisions for multinational managers, extraordinary ability aliens, outstanding professors or researchers. � No labor market test required to protect native-born workers. 2. Lack of Path to Permanent Status for Future Flow Essential and Highly Skilled Workers: � New Y temporary worker program would create a constantly churning workforce, as it provides only a two-year nonimmigrant visa and requires workers to leave the U.S. for one year before being eligible to renew their work visa for a subsequent 2-year period. Maximum 6 years in Y status. � Carve-out of 10,000 green cards per year for "essential" Y workers, but no bridge to allow essential and highly skilled but non-degreed workers a path to eventual permanent lawful status. 3. Lack of Adequate Numbers of Future Green Cards for Employment-Based Immigrants: � Totally inadequate immigrant visa numbers (approximately 140,000 new green cards per year until the family backlogs are cleared over an 8 year period). � Future legal immigration program (after 8 years of family backlog clearance) limited to 380,000 �point system� visas, guaranteeing that new backlogs will grow immediately, and that undocumented immigration will continue. � Totally inadequate carve-outs for essential workers. 4. Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed. 5. Decimation of H-1B Program: � Adds new restrictions prohibiting employers from obtaining H-1B workers where formal degrees do not exactly correlate to proposed positions.
� Eliminates dual intent for both H-1B and L non-immigrants. This would interfere with companies� ability to recruit someone from a U.S. university and seek a green card for them while employing them on an H-1B. � Overregulates legitimate H-1B employers by subjecting all H-1B employers to burdensome rules currently applied to �willful violators� and H-1B dependent employers. � Huge increase in H-1B fees (from current $1500 to new $5000 by Sanders amendment) o Will force companies to move projects and U.S. jobs to overseas facilities, and will make it all but impossible for many businesses to stay competitive. o Will inflict disproportionate pain on small firms and American innovators. o Additional fees for filing, premium processing, recruitment and training, antifraud, compliance and other legal and administrative costs can amount to $9,000 just to secure initial H-1B approval. o H-1B employers already contribute more than $127.5 million per year to U.S. job training and scholarships through existing fees. This training and scholarship fund would go up to over $200 million per year even if the H-1B cap were only raised to 115,000, as currently proposed. o Scholarship and training fees U.S. companies now pay for each H-1B professional hired are approaching $2 billion since 1999. o These fees have funded more than 40,000 scholarships for U.S. students in math and science through the National Science Foundation, hands-on science programs for 80,000 middle and high school students and 3,700 teachers, and training for more than 55,000 U.S. workers and professionals. o U.S. businesses pay over $91 billion a year in state and local taxes directed toward public education. o Increased H-1B fees are nothing more than a tax on innovation that will end up driving U.S. jobs overseas by making it more difficult to hire the highly educated talent America needs. � American professionals in "computer and mathematical" occupations are at virtual full employment, with a low annual unemployment rate of 2.4 percent in 2006. Cutting off the supply of H-1B talent will only hurt American competitiveness. � The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of 100,000 jobs a year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and 2014, the highest of all white collar professional categories. Note Re: Possible Amendments:
Cantwell Amendment (#1249) One amendment that has been �filed,� but is not currently �pending� is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment � whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package. Nevertheless,
it is important to let senators know that this amendment is strongly supported by businesses. The Cantwell amendment would set up a parallel and complementary employer-sponsored merit-based program. This �employer-sponsored� stream would let companies determine the skill sets that they need and would like to sponsor for a green card and this employer-sponsored merit based system would provide 140,000 visas separate and in addition to those currently in the bill. This amendment would protect U.S. workers by applying labor market tests to employer sponsorship of foreign workers. In addition to dealing with employment-based green cards, this amendment also addresses some of the �grand bargain�s� changes to the H-1B program by striking the presumption of �immigrant intent� and restoring the �degree equivalency� provision. Furthermore, the amendment, while maintaining the provisions to strengthen H-1B enforcement in the bill, would eliminate overregulation of legitimate H-1B employers by striking provisions that would require every employer comply with burdensome rules that currently apply only to �willful violators� and to employers with excessive numbers of H-1B employees.
Durbin-Grassley Amendment (#1231) There will also possibly be a vote on a Durbin-Grassley amendment. The amendment would strike provisions in the bill that allow the Secretary of Labor to determine whether or not there is a shortage of U.S. workers in the occupation and area of intended employment for which a Y nonimmigrant is sought. This amendment would require employers to follow extensive hiring and recruitment procedures even in areas where there labor shortages as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in Senate Bill
1. Decimation of Employment-Based Immigration System: � Eliminates first, second, and third employment-based immigration categories. � �Merit-based" point system completely disconnects employment-based immigration from employers, who have only a negligible role in new system and are unable to sponsor specific employees for permanent residence. � No provisions for multinational managers, extraordinary ability aliens, outstanding professors or researchers. � No labor market test required to protect native-born workers. 2. Lack of Path to Permanent Status for Future Flow Essential and Highly Skilled Workers: � New Y temporary worker program would create a constantly churning workforce, as it provides only a two-year nonimmigrant visa and requires workers to leave the U.S. for one year before being eligible to renew their work visa for a subsequent 2-year period. Maximum 6 years in Y status. � Carve-out of 10,000 green cards per year for "essential" Y workers, but no bridge to allow essential and highly skilled but non-degreed workers a path to eventual permanent lawful status. 3. Lack of Adequate Numbers of Future Green Cards for Employment-Based Immigrants: � Totally inadequate immigrant visa numbers (approximately 140,000 new green cards per year until the family backlogs are cleared over an 8 year period). � Future legal immigration program (after 8 years of family backlog clearance) limited to 380,000 �point system� visas, guaranteeing that new backlogs will grow immediately, and that undocumented immigration will continue. � Totally inadequate carve-outs for essential workers. 4. Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed. 5. Decimation of H-1B Program: � Adds new restrictions prohibiting employers from obtaining H-1B workers where formal degrees do not exactly correlate to proposed positions.
� Eliminates dual intent for both H-1B and L non-immigrants. This would interfere with companies� ability to recruit someone from a U.S. university and seek a green card for them while employing them on an H-1B. � Overregulates legitimate H-1B employers by subjecting all H-1B employers to burdensome rules currently applied to �willful violators� and H-1B dependent employers. � Huge increase in H-1B fees (from current $1500 to new $5000 by Sanders amendment) o Will force companies to move projects and U.S. jobs to overseas facilities, and will make it all but impossible for many businesses to stay competitive. o Will inflict disproportionate pain on small firms and American innovators. o Additional fees for filing, premium processing, recruitment and training, antifraud, compliance and other legal and administrative costs can amount to $9,000 just to secure initial H-1B approval. o H-1B employers already contribute more than $127.5 million per year to U.S. job training and scholarships through existing fees. This training and scholarship fund would go up to over $200 million per year even if the H-1B cap were only raised to 115,000, as currently proposed. o Scholarship and training fees U.S. companies now pay for each H-1B professional hired are approaching $2 billion since 1999. o These fees have funded more than 40,000 scholarships for U.S. students in math and science through the National Science Foundation, hands-on science programs for 80,000 middle and high school students and 3,700 teachers, and training for more than 55,000 U.S. workers and professionals. o U.S. businesses pay over $91 billion a year in state and local taxes directed toward public education. o Increased H-1B fees are nothing more than a tax on innovation that will end up driving U.S. jobs overseas by making it more difficult to hire the highly educated talent America needs. � American professionals in "computer and mathematical" occupations are at virtual full employment, with a low annual unemployment rate of 2.4 percent in 2006. Cutting off the supply of H-1B talent will only hurt American competitiveness. � The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of 100,000 jobs a year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and 2014, the highest of all white collar professional categories. Note Re: Possible Amendments:
Cantwell Amendment (#1249) One amendment that has been �filed,� but is not currently �pending� is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment � whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package. Nevertheless,
it is important to let senators know that this amendment is strongly supported by businesses. The Cantwell amendment would set up a parallel and complementary employer-sponsored merit-based program. This �employer-sponsored� stream would let companies determine the skill sets that they need and would like to sponsor for a green card and this employer-sponsored merit based system would provide 140,000 visas separate and in addition to those currently in the bill. This amendment would protect U.S. workers by applying labor market tests to employer sponsorship of foreign workers. In addition to dealing with employment-based green cards, this amendment also addresses some of the �grand bargain�s� changes to the H-1B program by striking the presumption of �immigrant intent� and restoring the �degree equivalency� provision. Furthermore, the amendment, while maintaining the provisions to strengthen H-1B enforcement in the bill, would eliminate overregulation of legitimate H-1B employers by striking provisions that would require every employer comply with burdensome rules that currently apply only to �willful violators� and to employers with excessive numbers of H-1B employees.
Durbin-Grassley Amendment (#1231) There will also possibly be a vote on a Durbin-Grassley amendment. The amendment would strike provisions in the bill that allow the Secretary of Labor to determine whether or not there is a shortage of U.S. workers in the occupation and area of intended employment for which a Y nonimmigrant is sought. This amendment would require employers to follow extensive hiring and recruitment procedures even in areas where there labor shortages as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
santb1975
02-11 11:50 AM
Keep this thread on Top
more...
pappu
05-25 01:04 PM
Paypal Transaction ID: 3XD21983XR083501J
Also forwarded this thread link to all friends stuck in Immigration limbo!
Thank you
Also forwarded this thread link to all friends stuck in Immigration limbo!
Thank you
jungalee43
11-08 03:47 PM
Dems winning the house is definitely a good news. Senate was always favorable to us. It was "majority of the majority" in the house that was totally against any kind of relief barring something for nurses. Most of the IV members know the retrogression story SR1932 onwards. But six months before that senate had approved relief for all EB categories under Tsunami Relief Act And the republican lobby in the house restricted it to nurses only. That was HR1268 of April 2005. You can refer to Murthy chat session of May 9, 2005 to read some info on this.
The presidential elections were just over then and primaries were not on the horizon for this congressional election. In short house republicans would have blocked any immigration relief; elections or not.
With Sensenbrenner and Hastret gone, at least now we have new people to deal with and we know they are more towards the center. We can now hope that our prayers would be answered.
The presidential elections were just over then and primaries were not on the horizon for this congressional election. In short house republicans would have blocked any immigration relief; elections or not.
With Sensenbrenner and Hastret gone, at least now we have new people to deal with and we know they are more towards the center. We can now hope that our prayers would be answered.
more...
reddog
05-29 03:28 PM
I have never flown Air France before and I will never fly them again, even if they are the cheapest. And I mean it.
If every indian can do that, it will bring a change in attitude.
If every indian can do that, it will bring a change in attitude.
guesswho
06-04 09:51 AM
Can someone with similar experience please help?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
what_now
05-30 05:20 PM
contribute....
H4_losing_hope
02-29 05:50 PM
I have sent in 3 letters and will be collecting 10 more letters before tomorrow
Prijay
Attended Sep 18th Rally
This is really great, thank you for your extra efforts :D
Prijay
Attended Sep 18th Rally
This is really great, thank you for your extra efforts :D
satyasaich
03-20 11:08 PM
I have got an RFE for 485 application. USCIS is asking me for Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for the employer I NEVER worked. (I have typed exact message below)
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
First of all,based on the information you provided i believe that
1. You are continuously employed WITHOUT any gap, meaning working 40 hrs/ week and clean history of pay stubs, W2s etc
2. You have been working for only one employer at any given point of time, as a full time employee
IF What i said above is true, then RFE makes no sense. because based on the H1B rules and regulations, one can have multiple H1Bs BUT can only work for ONE employer as full time, meaning 40hrs/week.
It is also completely legal that one can work up to 20hrs/week for second employer by paying proper taxes . but in your case i believe that you have worked for only one employer and i think you can show the evidence.
Please contact your attorney and draft a response carefully
Please correct me if were wrong
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
First of all,based on the information you provided i believe that
1. You are continuously employed WITHOUT any gap, meaning working 40 hrs/ week and clean history of pay stubs, W2s etc
2. You have been working for only one employer at any given point of time, as a full time employee
IF What i said above is true, then RFE makes no sense. because based on the H1B rules and regulations, one can have multiple H1Bs BUT can only work for ONE employer as full time, meaning 40hrs/week.
It is also completely legal that one can work up to 20hrs/week for second employer by paying proper taxes . but in your case i believe that you have worked for only one employer and i think you can show the evidence.
Please contact your attorney and draft a response carefully
Please correct me if were wrong
pcs
07-06 09:02 AM
I had FREE company attorney but decided to file 485 etc. myself & it was so much better. You can easily do 140-485 etc yourself. Call me & I will tell you.
If at all use an attorney for PERM. In my situation, even that was screwed up & I had to do that myself.
It is high time, all of us capable of handling complex viral equations, do this simple job , spread the knowledge , save $$$ & contribute some savings to IV
Best wishes
If at all use an attorney for PERM. In my situation, even that was screwed up & I had to do that myself.
It is high time, all of us capable of handling complex viral equations, do this simple job , spread the knowledge , save $$$ & contribute some savings to IV
Best wishes
rfarkiya
09-12 11:46 PM
Prince charming - I invoked AC21 sometime back after 180 days of filing 485 and moved to a new job on EAD.
My ex employer revoked 140. At this point of time I did a lot of research and found out the following things
(1) AC21 letter never reaches your file - there is no system in place for AC21 letter. G 28 gets into the system because there is a process in place for G 28
AC21 is a law that allows you to change jobs but there is no system in place.
(2) AC21 letter must be provided upon request - different officers want differtent information so they generally issue a NOID and ask you to submit evidence in 30 days. USCIS in some cases sends out straight denials. The denial letter generally has information to file MTR within 30 days if the case needs to be reopened due to USCIS error.
In August when my case was being processed, they sent me a NOID but sent my wife Fp notice - I called customer service and was advised that she can go for FP as usual but I have to respond to NOID before they move forward with my case and I promptly responded with AC21 and my case status changed to "Case reopened, response received" and there were soft LUDs hitting my 485.
Keep all documentation ready and be proactive, you can hire a good lawyer from MTR, remember that when you file for MTR, you cannot work - so before you inform your employer, get a letter from them and then inform them - in case employers will be reluctant to give any documentation if they know you cannot work for sometime. If you are on h1b you dont have to worry.
MTR approvals can take 3 to 5 weeks or more too.
if not on h1b you start accruing unlawful status and usually lawyers suggest that you stay till less than 180 days when your MTR is filed - it never takes 180 days for a decision on MTR so dont worry about unlawful status.
These are hidden risks in AC21 but good news is that AC21 cases have always been successful.
You may have to go through this period of uncertainity.
Good luck.
Take care man
My ex employer revoked 140. At this point of time I did a lot of research and found out the following things
(1) AC21 letter never reaches your file - there is no system in place for AC21 letter. G 28 gets into the system because there is a process in place for G 28
AC21 is a law that allows you to change jobs but there is no system in place.
(2) AC21 letter must be provided upon request - different officers want differtent information so they generally issue a NOID and ask you to submit evidence in 30 days. USCIS in some cases sends out straight denials. The denial letter generally has information to file MTR within 30 days if the case needs to be reopened due to USCIS error.
In August when my case was being processed, they sent me a NOID but sent my wife Fp notice - I called customer service and was advised that she can go for FP as usual but I have to respond to NOID before they move forward with my case and I promptly responded with AC21 and my case status changed to "Case reopened, response received" and there were soft LUDs hitting my 485.
Keep all documentation ready and be proactive, you can hire a good lawyer from MTR, remember that when you file for MTR, you cannot work - so before you inform your employer, get a letter from them and then inform them - in case employers will be reluctant to give any documentation if they know you cannot work for sometime. If you are on h1b you dont have to worry.
MTR approvals can take 3 to 5 weeks or more too.
if not on h1b you start accruing unlawful status and usually lawyers suggest that you stay till less than 180 days when your MTR is filed - it never takes 180 days for a decision on MTR so dont worry about unlawful status.
These are hidden risks in AC21 but good news is that AC21 cases have always been successful.
You may have to go through this period of uncertainity.
Good luck.
Take care man
No comments:
Post a Comment