Templarian
11-28 08:49 PM
Yea, Scythe I think rotating the text made it a bit to complex. :trout:
wallpaper texto para invitaciones de
nmdial
04-21 09:36 AM
Friends,
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
sledge_hammer
07-01 12:54 PM
The amended H-1B by itself will not be an issue when it comes to GC.
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
I hope this H1B amendment will not impede in anyway the GC process. Would it? Thanks!
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
I hope this H1B amendment will not impede in anyway the GC process. Would it? Thanks!
2011 texto para invitaciones de
imh1b
02-04 03:45 PM
How did you celebrate?
What are your changed plans now in life?
What are your changed plans now in life?
more...
minimalist
04-17 01:35 PM
you should have been OK to go out and get back in, assuming you get the Visa. Probably you can do the same even now, if you do get the Visa.
I know one person who was working on OPT and their employer filed for h1. She continued to work while waiting for USCIS approval even though the OPT expired.
Finally when she did get the decision on h1 that it has been denied, she consulted a lawyer, on their advise, left the country immediately and got back in on H4. However, it was less than 180 days since her OPT expired.
I am not sure how the o1 works or if this info may be relevant to you.
Hello,
Thanks a lot for your answers.
Despite the situation sounds illegal and I agree it is - I didn't wanted to make something illegal and was just waiting for my employer to fill the papers.
I am as well what they call a skilled worker, I basically get a o1 visa to work as manager for a big company and I don't give a fuck - but yeah I get another job offer and didn't waited to have the new visa to start. You know sometimes you can take bad decisions, people can tell you things which never happen, and that's unfortunately how life is.
Last week I get another job offer, it's real and not illegal - I worked a lot to get this offer and spent so much time working hard instead to have fun.
I am currently filling a new o1 with a lawyer and plan anyway to leave the US asap. Maybe I will never have this visa and will probably be bar for 3 years but I really need to try to make everything possible.
When I get the first job offer in the US - I was working as manager in Europe, and everything was pretty fine. I accepted this job, sold and gave all the stuff I owned to come here, in the United States, to work. Today I have no apartment or place to live in my country and I know as well that when you get a non immigrant visa you are supposed to can get back to your country easily but it's like hard to keep 2 rent and 2 places.
I will be very grateful if you can give me your point of view about my case and share your experiences.
Thanks a lot
I know one person who was working on OPT and their employer filed for h1. She continued to work while waiting for USCIS approval even though the OPT expired.
Finally when she did get the decision on h1 that it has been denied, she consulted a lawyer, on their advise, left the country immediately and got back in on H4. However, it was less than 180 days since her OPT expired.
I am not sure how the o1 works or if this info may be relevant to you.
Hello,
Thanks a lot for your answers.
Despite the situation sounds illegal and I agree it is - I didn't wanted to make something illegal and was just waiting for my employer to fill the papers.
I am as well what they call a skilled worker, I basically get a o1 visa to work as manager for a big company and I don't give a fuck - but yeah I get another job offer and didn't waited to have the new visa to start. You know sometimes you can take bad decisions, people can tell you things which never happen, and that's unfortunately how life is.
Last week I get another job offer, it's real and not illegal - I worked a lot to get this offer and spent so much time working hard instead to have fun.
I am currently filling a new o1 with a lawyer and plan anyway to leave the US asap. Maybe I will never have this visa and will probably be bar for 3 years but I really need to try to make everything possible.
When I get the first job offer in the US - I was working as manager in Europe, and everything was pretty fine. I accepted this job, sold and gave all the stuff I owned to come here, in the United States, to work. Today I have no apartment or place to live in my country and I know as well that when you get a non immigrant visa you are supposed to can get back to your country easily but it's like hard to keep 2 rent and 2 places.
I will be very grateful if you can give me your point of view about my case and share your experiences.
Thanks a lot
brb2
04-02 11:43 PM
Some of the figures looked a bit too unbelievable so I checked out. A particular one that was hard to believe - in the US Science and Engineering undergraduates is 32% (page 1 of IV report). On checking with the referenced document (Executive summary) at:
http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11463.pdf
Page 12 quotes a figure of 15% for US undergraduates in Science/Engineering.
IV core members can you please clarify? If it is incorrect then we need to correct the document before some one points out the flaw.
http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11463.pdf
Page 12 quotes a figure of 15% for US undergraduates in Science/Engineering.
IV core members can you please clarify? If it is incorrect then we need to correct the document before some one points out the flaw.
more...
pitha
06-11 12:25 PM
if you saw any of the news shows over the weekend everybody says the chances of this passing the senate are about 33% and even if it passes the senate it might not pass the house. even kyl was skeptical about its chances. this is our chance, lets oppose this bill tooth and nail. no bill is better bill for us as long as kennedy, kyl and durbin are around. please oppose this bill
2010 texto para invitaciones de
Jerry2121
07-06 09:26 PM
Hello ,
Here is a run down on my case:
First I-485 applied in 6/2002,
Fingerprint done, EAD obtained in 2/03
Application withdrawn by spouse due to conviction
Second I-485 applied by my 2nd DW in 7/05
Interview granted in 5/06
Case still pending due name check
GC? till date
Anyone with a similar case and any advice on this case? I've spent about 30K USD on this case on Lawyers and still have NOT got any decision from the USCIS. Now , I'm considering filing a WOM. Whats your take on this? Thanks !
Here is a run down on my case:
First I-485 applied in 6/2002,
Fingerprint done, EAD obtained in 2/03
Application withdrawn by spouse due to conviction
Second I-485 applied by my 2nd DW in 7/05
Interview granted in 5/06
Case still pending due name check
GC? till date
Anyone with a similar case and any advice on this case? I've spent about 30K USD on this case on Lawyers and still have NOT got any decision from the USCIS. Now , I'm considering filing a WOM. Whats your take on this? Thanks !
more...
rockstart
06-16 12:46 PM
I dont think USCIS will again match your education with labor now at 485 stage in normal circumstances unless there is some fraud. 485 is more about your name check and fingerprint check along with if you were ever out of status. The only thing they can ask again is a new employment offer letter.
hair Invitacion para Baby Shower
Nil
06-16 08:52 AM
^^^^^^^^
more...
vroapp
08-07 08:05 AM
I'm afraid I can't help you with your application but Congrats! on getting married, i.e... :-)
hot tarjetas de aby shower te
superdude
07-17 11:26 PM
Am I in the same situation? My spouse left US today to INDIA. However we filled the 485 on July 2nd. Will they consider that as abandonment of the application?
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
more...
house texto para invitaciones de
sujijag
03-11 06:33 PM
If someone does this - its fraud, if they do it themselves - its legitimate.
Seek Lawyer's help, asking such qns in forums only creates backlash ;)
Seek Lawyer's help, asking such qns in forums only creates backlash ;)
tattoo texto para invitaciones de
gc_in_30_yrs
11-21 01:16 PM
I saw the following status on I-131
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
Yes, I guess.
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
Yes, I guess.
more...
pictures Frases para invitaciones de
nyckings
10-15 03:41 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.
I think the same. As my latest passport shows no visa except the AP entry stamp, they are confused how did I travel to India earlier. My wife explained them that I used AP, but they still believe that a visa page is missing in the supporting docs. So they have retained the passport and asked to submit 'current copy of husband's visa'. Now I am going to write a personal letter explaining the same and attaching the original I-797 which has my I-94.
I think the same. As my latest passport shows no visa except the AP entry stamp, they are confused how did I travel to India earlier. My wife explained them that I used AP, but they still believe that a visa page is missing in the supporting docs. So they have retained the passport and asked to submit 'current copy of husband's visa'. Now I am going to write a personal letter explaining the same and attaching the original I-797 which has my I-94.
dresses texto para invitaciones de
GCwaitforever
08-17 08:58 AM
I would not advise people to move to UK without a job offer either. I read in the documents that the VISA is granted for 2 years.
more...
makeup Invitaciones para baby shower.
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)
girlfriend texto para invitaciones de
LostInGCProcess
05-19 04:05 PM
You should have reported these issues within 12 months of your employement. Otherwise there is no use. All you can do is send a letter to the Wipro HR, stateing you are filing a formal complaint to the DOL and wirting to the congress man. Also tell them you are going to make sure this story highted everywhere in the Internet and media to damage WIPRO's name. I am sure they do not want to get a bad PR in this situation where everyone hates the Indian companies.
The statue of limitation is, i believe, 2 years.
The statue of limitation is, i believe, 2 years.
hairstyles Invitaciones para Baby Shower
punjabi77
08-06 12:12 PM
In my particular case, when i signed the contract, the employer agreed to pay for my GC process. But as usual, My employer also did not follow the contract and when my labor was approved, he asked me to pay for the Labor and take care of GC application fees hence forth. I was kind of surprised and did argue with my employer. But Employer gave me an option to leave his company and move to a diff company if needed. But since the labor was approved and the current project was going fine, i thought of sticking with the company and agreed on paying the GC fees.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
raj2007
02-18 10:32 PM
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything in your wife's matter. The people you are referring to as the ones whose cases got accepted are the ones with bounced checks. There is a difference between the manner in which USCIS treats cases with bounced checks and cases where checks are missing, are in an incorrect amount, there is a mismatch between words and figures in the check, check is not dated, check is not signed, etc.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
jonty_11
11-06 12:29 PM
I would suggest you to switch jobs and complain to USCIS right away instead of waiting for company A to take some action against you. This will keep the company under scrutiny of USCIS and they can unearth more mud on this company. Never put up with injustice as this encourages company A to do more of this to other employees.
Totally agree with you. However, I have been complaining abt a similar company to my local INS office for over one year now (sending letters every other month) , but to no avail. Where do we complain?
Totally agree with you. However, I have been complaining abt a similar company to my local INS office for over one year now (sending letters every other month) , but to no avail. Where do we complain?
No comments:
Post a Comment