sweet_jungle
09-24 03:12 PM
Applying to a top MBA program is quite intense, especially if you come from a competitive applicant pool. eg: laid off investment banker (plenty of those headed to B-school), Indian-engineer, Chinese-anything, etc. Are you sure you want to go through the effort and expense of the application process if you cannot attend? It takes about 3-4 weeks to put a serious application package together - maybe you can put this time to better use by applying to a program that you can actually attend. That can also be a plan-B in case something goes wrong with the GC application.
Think it through and good luck with your decision. Wish you the Best.
thanks for your advice. It is still OK if due to GC screwup, I cannot attend rather than my GC comes through next year, and I fret over why I did not apply. of couse, this is a personal choice. But, this is how I have decided to face the situation. I know of people who have applied 3 times and gone through. Also, deferrals for genuine reasons are allowed by schools, though not all.
Also, MBA process is less stressful than say, applying to MS from India. Being in USA for last few years, we now know better about what is what.
Think it through and good luck with your decision. Wish you the Best.
thanks for your advice. It is still OK if due to GC screwup, I cannot attend rather than my GC comes through next year, and I fret over why I did not apply. of couse, this is a personal choice. But, this is how I have decided to face the situation. I know of people who have applied 3 times and gone through. Also, deferrals for genuine reasons are allowed by schools, though not all.
Also, MBA process is less stressful than say, applying to MS from India. Being in USA for last few years, we now know better about what is what.
wallpaper Kid Cudi Wallpaper - No
REEF�
06-07 06:16 PM
Lol...don't feel bad it's not your fault.
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)
2011 Kid Cudi
razis123
06-16 10:13 AM
Do RFE's for qualification and requirements comes only for LC or 140? I am with a similar profile but got LC and 140 approved and already filed for 485 last year. How much probablity is there that i might get an RFE for this for my 485 adjudication?
education and experience requirements are tied to a position, not to the person. So the LC is going to look into whether the position of a systems analyst requires a masters, and if it does what kind (as the minimum requriements). At I-140 they see if YOU match the position for which the LC has been approved. If the LC said systems-analyst needs a masters in computer-science or electrical engineering, then you will have a problem.
You can potentially get two questions in the RFE:
- why does the job need a Masters (EB2 justification for LC)
- why does a masters in mechanical engineering satisfy the requirement of a masters for a system analyst position (whether you meet the requirement, at I-140 stage).
Since you yourself say the position does not require a masters, proviing it needs a masters in mech. engg might be even harder. Did you ask your company attorney about this? what do they say?
education and experience requirements are tied to a position, not to the person. So the LC is going to look into whether the position of a systems analyst requires a masters, and if it does what kind (as the minimum requriements). At I-140 they see if YOU match the position for which the LC has been approved. If the LC said systems-analyst needs a masters in computer-science or electrical engineering, then you will have a problem.
You can potentially get two questions in the RFE:
- why does the job need a Masters (EB2 justification for LC)
- why does a masters in mechanical engineering satisfy the requirement of a masters for a system analyst position (whether you meet the requirement, at I-140 stage).
Since you yourself say the position does not require a masters, proviing it needs a masters in mech. engg might be even harder. Did you ask your company attorney about this? what do they say?
more...
sina
04-16 08:47 AM
I am also planning on changing location from one state to another but the job is still with the same company (just moving to a different branch). My lawyer said it will not affect my GC but I have to get a new LCA for my H1. I still do not understand how this will not affect my GC (I have a approved 140 and waiting to file 485). Is there a way this is possible like if the labor is filed from the corporate office and has nothing do with branch locations?
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
srarao
07-14 08:49 AM
I see lot of mails asking the Core team to come up with some info.
They are also guys like us and they are good to work for us .
If they have any info it is on the site.
Let us not drag them in every discusssion.
Let them do their job.
-Rao.
They are also guys like us and they are good to work for us .
If they have any info it is on the site.
Let us not drag them in every discusssion.
Let them do their job.
-Rao.
more...
guygeek007
07-31 11:03 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2010 Kid+cudi+wallpaper+1080p
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
more...
ryan
02-03 04:09 PM
That is correct. Mixing and matching with certifications doesn't work. Although I don't know about CPA, if it goes towards professional degree.
Hey there, I have a three year bachelor's (from Australia) and an American CPA. I believe the two can be evaluated to an Ameircan Master's equivalent. Please, check with your lawyers. It should be possible.
Hey there, I have a three year bachelor's (from Australia) and an American CPA. I believe the two can be evaluated to an Ameircan Master's equivalent. Please, check with your lawyers. It should be possible.
hair Kid+cudi+wallpaper+smoking
buehler
07-13 04:44 PM
Wow!. I did not realise that. I an unknown quantity. What does that mean?
That means there are some positive and some negative votes for you.
It looks I now have two green squares. With three squares I will get my GC within the next two years. So if only I can get a few more votes :D
P.S - I can't believe I am spending my Friday evening that too in Summer in front of my computer.
That means there are some positive and some negative votes for you.
It looks I now have two green squares. With three squares I will get my GC within the next two years. So if only I can get a few more votes :D
P.S - I can't believe I am spending my Friday evening that too in Summer in front of my computer.
more...
new_horizon
04-22 09:56 PM
I think this banned person was only against the illegal people here. He/she mentioned that US should not welcome uneducated poor people who would be a drain on the US resources. But what he means is that US should welcome educated people like us who have contributed tremendously to the US economy. I think he's somewhat aware of the differences between illegals and legals.
hot Kid+cudi+wallpaper+smoking
meridiani.planum
05-18 12:56 PM
If this passes this will be awesome for Ph.D. graduates.
and also for non-PhD folks like me. As they exempt these superstars from the queue, it also has the effect of making the queue smaller (slightly atleast) for everyone else. i personalyl know of two PhDs who are waiting in EB2 queue for the last 3 years...
and also for non-PhD folks like me. As they exempt these superstars from the queue, it also has the effect of making the queue smaller (slightly atleast) for everyone else. i personalyl know of two PhDs who are waiting in EB2 queue for the last 3 years...
more...
house Hd+kid+cudi+wallpaper
sieger007
05-17 11:20 PM
Hey
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
tattoo Kid Cudi Photos, Kid Cudi
roxychaney
03-02 11:39 AM
Just out of curiousity, does traditional painting qualify?
o yea, guess i should have asked this before posting!
o yea, guess i should have asked this before posting!
more...
pictures Kid+cudi+wallpaper+smoking
LostInGCProcess
01-12 12:20 PM
This is absolutely illegal. Never never do this.
I concur with you, Marphad.
Its illegal to mail passport cross border.
I concur with you, Marphad.
Its illegal to mail passport cross border.
dresses Kid+cudi+wallpaper+smoking
srh1
10-28 02:31 PM
Folks,
Iam starting this new thread so that people will know what are the pros and cons leaving a company once GC is approved.
1.What are all the things to be noted while leaving the company after getting GC.
2.To be specific how long a consultant should be with company after GC is approved.
3.Also once GC is approved and if the consultant is off the payroll for say 2 to 3 months will there be any problem while filing for citizen ship.
Iam starting this new thread so that people will know what are the pros and cons leaving a company once GC is approved.
1.What are all the things to be noted while leaving the company after getting GC.
2.To be specific how long a consultant should be with company after GC is approved.
3.Also once GC is approved and if the consultant is off the payroll for say 2 to 3 months will there be any problem while filing for citizen ship.
more...
makeup Kid Cudi Wallpaper
mrdelhiite
08-07 09:01 AM
I'm afraid I can't help you with your application but Congrats! on getting married, i.e... :-)
Thank you Sir :-)
Also anyone, any replies for my questions please?
Thanks
-M
Thank you Sir :-)
Also anyone, any replies for my questions please?
Thanks
-M
girlfriend my Out the adventure apr stoner nov kidkid Kid+cudi+wallpaper+mr+rager
reachinus
07-08 01:47 PM
07/08/2007: Massive Flower Send-In Campaign by Indian Community in Spirit of Mahatma Gandhi's Nonviolent Protest Against the Injustice Involving Visa Bulletin Fiasco
The East Indian community has been engaging in an interesting campaign sending a massive bouque of flowers with a message of protest to the leaders of the USCIS and the State Deparment, including Mr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS and Dr. Rice, Secretary of Department of State relating to the ongoing Visa Bulletin commotion. Indians are the primary sources of foreign high-tech workers and the country's much needed sources of brains for the businesses and the employers, and it turns out that the current Visa Bulletin fiasco has hit most them and their U.S. employers. Considering the fact that the Congress sidelined foreign legal workers and brains as a backburner issue in the ill-fated CIR, the current Visa Bulletin fiasco appears to add the heat of outrage to the Congress' unfair and unjust treatment of the legal immigrants by leaders in this country. OUCH!
http://www.immigration-law.com/
The East Indian community has been engaging in an interesting campaign sending a massive bouque of flowers with a message of protest to the leaders of the USCIS and the State Deparment, including Mr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS and Dr. Rice, Secretary of Department of State relating to the ongoing Visa Bulletin commotion. Indians are the primary sources of foreign high-tech workers and the country's much needed sources of brains for the businesses and the employers, and it turns out that the current Visa Bulletin fiasco has hit most them and their U.S. employers. Considering the fact that the Congress sidelined foreign legal workers and brains as a backburner issue in the ill-fated CIR, the current Visa Bulletin fiasco appears to add the heat of outrage to the Congress' unfair and unjust treatment of the legal immigrants by leaders in this country. OUCH!
http://www.immigration-law.com/
hairstyles Kid+cudi+wallpaper+smoking
p1234
09-26 10:39 AM
1)Incase my 485 application gets denied, can I start the process again and use the PD of my current application?
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
You are inviting trouble when you think of doing something out of the ordinary. I am not sure why people make their cases complicated. This is a very general comment and nothing specific about your case.
Heard from several friends about multiple labors (one EB2, another EB3), multiple I-140s. They are themselves not sure what is approved and what is pending approval. :). Have a friend who jumped job in May 07 on approved I140 + 3 yrs visa extn, then went back to previous one in July 07 and filed 485. After realizing EB3 is all messed up (thanks to 07/07), jumped to a third employer on AC21 (I think). There is yet another with a similar story.
We blame USCIS for everything (rightfully so), however we don't realize how much desi consulting firms and employees have exploited the system and added to the processing delays, for easy money.
Forget PD reuse, people have been jumping jobs left and right on AC21 and getting it denied.
PD porting is possible but as others have pointed out, it is not exactly a best practice recommendation.
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
You are inviting trouble when you think of doing something out of the ordinary. I am not sure why people make their cases complicated. This is a very general comment and nothing specific about your case.
Heard from several friends about multiple labors (one EB2, another EB3), multiple I-140s. They are themselves not sure what is approved and what is pending approval. :). Have a friend who jumped job in May 07 on approved I140 + 3 yrs visa extn, then went back to previous one in July 07 and filed 485. After realizing EB3 is all messed up (thanks to 07/07), jumped to a third employer on AC21 (I think). There is yet another with a similar story.
We blame USCIS for everything (rightfully so), however we don't realize how much desi consulting firms and employees have exploited the system and added to the processing delays, for easy money.
Forget PD reuse, people have been jumping jobs left and right on AC21 and getting it denied.
PD porting is possible but as others have pointed out, it is not exactly a best practice recommendation.
snathan
05-20 06:19 PM
Not favoring Wipro or quitting person here. General comment..
we need to be careful and review all aspect of issues with mgr and HR before leaving service companies. If we really want to come and work in US then come as independent companies on H1. People keep quite and say 'yes' for everything until H1 is filed in offshore and once a high paid offer comes then leaving and start saying 'sue' this company etc.
they pay fees for H1/air-fares/insurances for commitment for onsite work for some period. If person A goes out, they have to invest same amount of $ on new person B to get there and loosing credit at client also. Are these factors not overhead to these kind of companies?
Becoming so much emotional for money matters is quite common. Be practical and think wisely and negotiate peacefully with HR/MGR. Sending mails with lot of anger and threats to companies etc really don't much help in practical life and things go worse. this kind of stories is not first time and has been going for many years, think it from both sides.
Be practical, thinking peacefully. All the best.
They are not doing any charity for the employees...they want profit and cares only about their interest and so the employee. Whats wrong with that...
we need to be careful and review all aspect of issues with mgr and HR before leaving service companies. If we really want to come and work in US then come as independent companies on H1. People keep quite and say 'yes' for everything until H1 is filed in offshore and once a high paid offer comes then leaving and start saying 'sue' this company etc.
they pay fees for H1/air-fares/insurances for commitment for onsite work for some period. If person A goes out, they have to invest same amount of $ on new person B to get there and loosing credit at client also. Are these factors not overhead to these kind of companies?
Becoming so much emotional for money matters is quite common. Be practical and think wisely and negotiate peacefully with HR/MGR. Sending mails with lot of anger and threats to companies etc really don't much help in practical life and things go worse. this kind of stories is not first time and has been going for many years, think it from both sides.
Be practical, thinking peacefully. All the best.
They are not doing any charity for the employees...they want profit and cares only about their interest and so the employee. Whats wrong with that...
bluez25
10-28 07:26 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21572&highlight=leaving
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
No comments:
Post a Comment