cygent
04-16 04:18 PM
Hi Sara,
Could you please post you case details & PD?
This is my first post here but I am silent reader for past two years. I got my GC approved couple of weeks ago. A week before that,
Could you please post you case details & PD?
This is my first post here but I am silent reader for past two years. I got my GC approved couple of weeks ago. A week before that,
wallpaper kim kardashian holiday hair
gc_lover
06-08 08:04 AM
On another note, I was surprised that how little support we got from the Indian-American community (if I am wrong in assuming this, then correct me)! Bill Gates supported our cause, Intel supported our cause, Google supported our cause; but the huge number of Indian-American tech entrepreanuers in the US? Organizations like TIE? I am not sure if the IV core team tried to solicit any help from them or not but I thought their support was deafening.
Indian-American have never supported anything, especially if it's related to immigration. Because, for them once they get their GC or Citizenship they are done! They don't support anyone or stand for anything, it's just the way things are with us.
Indian-American have never supported anything, especially if it's related to immigration. Because, for them once they get their GC or Citizenship they are done! They don't support anyone or stand for anything, it's just the way things are with us.
mbartosik
03-28 11:10 AM
For nationality/changeability a ROW category is needed.
2011 Kim Kardashian can really work
lost
01-27 02:07 PM
We need to have a massive participation for our question to get noticed........and today is already Thrusday!
more...
bsbawa10
09-04 09:45 AM
USCIS has all information but they might not have resource/time to collect information about old cases that�s why they might be seeking help from other body.
How difficult is it to find info about the old cases. It is a simple search query on the database. (One single query)
How difficult is it to find info about the old cases. It is a simple search query on the database. (One single query)
gccovet
05-16 04:15 PM
All,
Did not want to create any sensational news, but this is what I gathered from speaking to an IO. I had applied for my EAD on Jan 25th and havent received any updates. So, I called the NSC customer service and an IO informed me that I need to check back with them in another 60 days if no decision is made by that time. When I said that it would be 6 months by that time, the IO said that "that's right. Each IO has about 500 applications on their desk and it will take some time to clear these off"
Just wanted to update everyone so that all the June/July filers can file appropriately.
Again, mine could be an isolated case. So, please dont panic::))
This is going to get worse as July 07 filers (i am one of them) starts filing renewals.
Question is: Can a person currently working on EAD continue to work on EAD (renewal request filed) eventhough EAD expires? what would be the status if he/she cannot work?
GCCovet.
Did not want to create any sensational news, but this is what I gathered from speaking to an IO. I had applied for my EAD on Jan 25th and havent received any updates. So, I called the NSC customer service and an IO informed me that I need to check back with them in another 60 days if no decision is made by that time. When I said that it would be 6 months by that time, the IO said that "that's right. Each IO has about 500 applications on their desk and it will take some time to clear these off"
Just wanted to update everyone so that all the June/July filers can file appropriately.
Again, mine could be an isolated case. So, please dont panic::))
This is going to get worse as July 07 filers (i am one of them) starts filing renewals.
Question is: Can a person currently working on EAD continue to work on EAD (renewal request filed) eventhough EAD expires? what would be the status if he/she cannot work?
GCCovet.
more...
kannan
07-21 02:07 PM
My 485 details
PD Nov 2005 EB 2 India Ported from Previous employer
Applied date July 2007
ND aug 23
Ist I 140 approved jan 2006 --( This got the below message)
2nd I 140 approved Mar 2007
Today I got a CRIS mail ,that my already approved I 140 got a status
Current Status: Case Transfered to Another Office for Processing.
On July 20, 2009, we transferred this case I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER to our LINCOLN, NE location for processing and sent you a notice explaining this action. Please follow the instructions provided on the notice. We will notify you by mail when a decision is made. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283 to update your address. You can use our processing dates to estimate when your case may be processed by following the link below. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case by registering in the link below.
This is my Previous employer's I 140approved in jan 2006, I transfered the PD .Any thing is wrong. I am so scared . I was laid off from April. Till now I did not get any Job.
Do I have to worry because this is my previous company I-140.
PD Nov 2005 EB 2 India Ported from Previous employer
Applied date July 2007
ND aug 23
Ist I 140 approved jan 2006 --( This got the below message)
2nd I 140 approved Mar 2007
Today I got a CRIS mail ,that my already approved I 140 got a status
Current Status: Case Transfered to Another Office for Processing.
On July 20, 2009, we transferred this case I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER to our LINCOLN, NE location for processing and sent you a notice explaining this action. Please follow the instructions provided on the notice. We will notify you by mail when a decision is made. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283 to update your address. You can use our processing dates to estimate when your case may be processed by following the link below. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case by registering in the link below.
This is my Previous employer's I 140approved in jan 2006, I transfered the PD .Any thing is wrong. I am so scared . I was laid off from April. Till now I did not get any Job.
Do I have to worry because this is my previous company I-140.
2010 hair 2010 Kim Kardashian Long
kart2007
10-21 12:57 PM
Thank you. So was your application in a Pending status or Approved status when you emailed Ombudsman?
In my case the application is approved but I haven't received the EAD card yet.
In my case the application is approved but I haven't received the EAD card yet.
more...
looivy
03-19 03:33 PM
Can a legal expert provide advice as to whether I can use EAD/AP to get in?
Bump
Bump
hair Labels: Celebrity Hair Styles,
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
tiger05
03-01 05:13 PM
Hi,
I am working for company A and I applied for H1 transfer to company B. They applied for premium processing on 25th and on 27th feb i got RFE.
RFE is
All payroll summaries (W-2 ) evidencing wages paid since you began work in H-1B status.
I came to US on 2006 feb, the attorney is submitting my W2s on monday. But my 2006 W2 is not good i have only 20K on 2006 W2, 2007 and 2008 W2S are good.
As my 2006 W2 is not good , does it effect my H1B transfer.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
I am working for company A and I applied for H1 transfer to company B. They applied for premium processing on 25th and on 27th feb i got RFE.
RFE is
All payroll summaries (W-2 ) evidencing wages paid since you began work in H-1B status.
I came to US on 2006 feb, the attorney is submitting my W2s on monday. But my 2006 W2 is not good i have only 20K on 2006 W2, 2007 and 2008 W2S are good.
As my 2006 W2 is not good , does it effect my H1B transfer.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
hot hairstyles, Kim Kardashian
kumar1305
01-22 07:27 PM
I hate the word Donate but somehow I donated blood which will be sent to Haiti. I did some in monies. Life is life no matter who it is.
more...
house Picture of Kim Kardashian Hair
kawosa
08-19 01:11 PM
I hear you, I've been in this country for last almost 10 years now. Came here to do my MBA too. The journey that began on Aug 2, 1999 is still continuing as of Aug 19, 2008... Anyways, best of luck to both of us.
and again... congrats for passing today...
go party and hope you have a great time :)
and again... congrats for passing today...
go party and hope you have a great time :)
tattoo Kim Kardashian Hairstyles
chanduv23
12-09 08:17 AM
Good morning
Bumpppppppppp
Bumpppppppppp
more...
pictures Kim Kardashian Hair
Brightsider
11-16 03:31 PM
Guys,
Am trying to find out the relevant parts of HR 2892 that extends that benefit to EB cases.
Havent been able to find it?
Apart from Shusterman's commentary, I havent seen anything about the extension of benefits of the 'widow's penalty' to EB cases.
Maybe I am not looking at the right doc.
But those of you who have been able to see it in the statute/law, could you please point it out .....by sending the url, or noting the section/article of the law or any other way.
Many thanks
Am trying to find out the relevant parts of HR 2892 that extends that benefit to EB cases.
Havent been able to find it?
Apart from Shusterman's commentary, I havent seen anything about the extension of benefits of the 'widow's penalty' to EB cases.
Maybe I am not looking at the right doc.
But those of you who have been able to see it in the statute/law, could you please point it out .....by sending the url, or noting the section/article of the law or any other way.
Many thanks
dresses Kim Kardashian#39;s long side
kopguy
05-12 06:56 PM
My PD is Sep-03, EB3-India. I left the employer who sponsored me one year after I filled 485 (thanks to July-07 fiasco). I have over 12 years of experience and was wondering if it was possible to port to EB-2 without having to file for new labor by just refilling I-140.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
makeup kim kardashian hairstyle. kim
sury
10-28 10:30 PM
We recieved EADs 3 weeks back and I am planning to apply SSN for my wife and kid.
Can anyone let me know what documents are required to show up at SSN office while applying SSN.
Thanks,
Sury
Can anyone let me know what documents are required to show up at SSN office while applying SSN.
Thanks,
Sury
girlfriend kardashian haircut long
mohitb272
11-06 11:54 AM
Hi,
did u gout ur receipt notice. I am still wating on my receipt. I called USCIS yesterday still not there in the system.
Please let me know if u got ur receipt number.
any one else who are wating on receipt number who filed I-485 on july 2nd.
Did your checks get encashed?
did u gout ur receipt notice. I am still wating on my receipt. I called USCIS yesterday still not there in the system.
Please let me know if u got ur receipt number.
any one else who are wating on receipt number who filed I-485 on july 2nd.
Did your checks get encashed?
hairstyles Kim Kardashian wearing a sexy
gc_on_demand
01-08 03:23 PM
from an old article: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/H1BSummary.pdf?popup=false
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
One major flaw in this one :
What if I want to change job 4 times in 3 year. Total advertise period will be 120 days and I wont be able to get GC. What if I am laid off and future company is just have requirement with in that week. They cannot hire me till they pass 30days and what if they get lots of resume from USC and DOL audit ..will company wait ??
More administrative process will encourage to hire only USC. When I graduated from school in USA , I applied to 4-5 big companies and I got reply back too. but when I told I need sponsership I was denied. I went to desi and I checked with one of company to see if they have same job. Lucky I found and I told them H1b transfer will be in week if they spend 1000 USD .. Guess what they agreed. and I am still with same company.
I think for permant residency it is good but for h1b.. bad for us. Eventully desi firms will sell 30 days approved labor.
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
One major flaw in this one :
What if I want to change job 4 times in 3 year. Total advertise period will be 120 days and I wont be able to get GC. What if I am laid off and future company is just have requirement with in that week. They cannot hire me till they pass 30days and what if they get lots of resume from USC and DOL audit ..will company wait ??
More administrative process will encourage to hire only USC. When I graduated from school in USA , I applied to 4-5 big companies and I got reply back too. but when I told I need sponsership I was denied. I went to desi and I checked with one of company to see if they have same job. Lucky I found and I told them H1b transfer will be in week if they spend 1000 USD .. Guess what they agreed. and I am still with same company.
I think for permant residency it is good but for h1b.. bad for us. Eventully desi firms will sell 30 days approved labor.
bluekayal
10-16 03:56 PM
Didn't you have one in 2009?
kumar1
12-27 12:02 PM
I would say, you will be unemployed during that search period.
what if i want to join a company(like Teksystems,GCI,etc,...) on an hourly basis on their W2.What will be my status when an assignment is over and i have to search for another project.
what if i want to join a company(like Teksystems,GCI,etc,...) on an hourly basis on their W2.What will be my status when an assignment is over and i have to search for another project.
No comments:
Post a Comment