nixstor
12-19 01:55 PM
Good idea. Should we orchestrate our calls so that there is no more and no less than 5 calls every day? I agree we have to persistent on this because he is our only hope.
I thought that we should call one senator or(and) congressman every day.
I guess IV core doesnt want to do it for some reason.
I thought that we should call one senator or(and) congressman every day.
I guess IV core doesnt want to do it for some reason.
gcdreamer05
11-18 02:11 PM
May be they are upgrading their systems, there was a post in this forums about uscis plans to merge 3 databases etc... may be its happening at last.:D
pasupuleti
06-20 12:49 PM
I live in bayarea. If we have't found enough people from LA, i can drive to LA.
If more people wants to join documentary efforts from bay area , we all can car pool together.
If more people wants to join documentary efforts from bay area , we all can car pool together.
skd
07-11 12:16 AM
lets not over do it. There is a thin line between it being tolerated and backfiring
Yeh over doing it can back fire.I don't thing we should this for more than 12th July
Yeh over doing it can back fire.I don't thing we should this for more than 12th July
more...
vinabath
06-13 10:41 AM
Success Formula for EB2-I:
1)- Get rid of all EB3 => EB2 conversions
2)- Get rid of all Subs
And there you go we have a fair FIFO system, but hey do our desi folks agree with this :eek: I bet they don't, when they themselves don't like FIFO and straightforward system and how come we expect USCIS to be straightforward and follow FIFO:confused:
Moral of story: Hang in where you are, its already very complicated PD,RD, ND, Country cap, EB cat ... blah .... blah
Nice point buddy..... every situation has work around solutions. like subs and eb3 - eb2 conversions. but people do need to sacrifice like.....
Paying for the labor sub and working for greedy desi companies...
and not all people are eligible for subs or conversions. Even if they are eligible they might not want to make sacrifices.....
1)- Get rid of all EB3 => EB2 conversions
2)- Get rid of all Subs
And there you go we have a fair FIFO system, but hey do our desi folks agree with this :eek: I bet they don't, when they themselves don't like FIFO and straightforward system and how come we expect USCIS to be straightforward and follow FIFO:confused:
Moral of story: Hang in where you are, its already very complicated PD,RD, ND, Country cap, EB cat ... blah .... blah
Nice point buddy..... every situation has work around solutions. like subs and eb3 - eb2 conversions. but people do need to sacrifice like.....
Paying for the labor sub and working for greedy desi companies...
and not all people are eligible for subs or conversions. Even if they are eligible they might not want to make sacrifices.....
zdash
10-26 03:11 PM
DREAM act just got shot in the heart but it's still alive. On September 22, 2010, Richard Durbin introduced the bill once again along with Richard Lugar.
I don't know what you mean by starting the GC process, you mean file I485?
I don't know what you mean by starting the GC process, you mean file I485?
more...
boreal
09-22 03:59 PM
Hi PCS,
I would appreciate if you confirm if the notarized experience letter is accepted as substitute for the original experience letter. I am planning use a preapproved labor but the job requirement for that labor requires some specific skills. My old employer would not give me the letter. So can I ask my colleague to send me a notarized experience letter ?
Thanks,
pcbadgujar
Oh God!! People can and will do anything to abuse Labor Substibution.
I would appreciate if you confirm if the notarized experience letter is accepted as substitute for the original experience letter. I am planning use a preapproved labor but the job requirement for that labor requires some specific skills. My old employer would not give me the letter. So can I ask my colleague to send me a notarized experience letter ?
Thanks,
pcbadgujar
Oh God!! People can and will do anything to abuse Labor Substibution.
cox
October 6th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Have you noticed that it noticably degrades the image quality? Your little birds look pretty good, and I got a squirrel I was happy with, but these geese were not quite as sharp as I would have liked.
Also, do you have any tips for dealing with the short focal range? Did you use binds or something for the little birds?
Also, do you have any tips for dealing with the short focal range? Did you use binds or something for the little birds?
more...
wellwishergc
07-06 12:17 PM
pappu, is there a separate effort on part of IV towards a legal-immigration based bill, where issues such as visa number capture will be taken up? It has been officially reported within the Ombudsman report that 182,694 have gone unused since 2000.
Nope not possible as of now. Lawsuit is specific to visa bulletin issue.
Nope not possible as of now. Lawsuit is specific to visa bulletin issue.
eb2dec2005
09-26 07:29 AM
I used AP to enter US in June this year.The IO stamp on my I94 and the AP document says 'Paroled unitl Sept 2009'. Should i consider the validity of AP until this date?
However on the actual AP documents under the Parole paragraph mentions the following: 'The bearereeparted the United States temporarily and intends to return to the US to resume processing of the adjustment of status application.Presentation of the original of this document prior to Sept 27 2008 allows a Customs and Border Protection Inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the names bearer...........'
Can you please let me know, what is the validity of the AP incase one is already out of country and is planning to return to US?Would the date on I94 be considered?
However on the actual AP documents under the Parole paragraph mentions the following: 'The bearereeparted the United States temporarily and intends to return to the US to resume processing of the adjustment of status application.Presentation of the original of this document prior to Sept 27 2008 allows a Customs and Border Protection Inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the names bearer...........'
Can you please let me know, what is the validity of the AP incase one is already out of country and is planning to return to US?Would the date on I94 be considered?
more...
pd_recapturing
07-18 04:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys, I have a approved EB3 I-140 with PD of May 2004. I recently applied a new EB2 I-140 under the PP to port PD and got RFE. RFE has been replied by my lawyer on 07/06 and we are waiting for their decision any moment.Now, as I am going to apply my I-485, what will be my best bet? to go with approved EB3 I 140 or go with receipt notice of pending PP EB2 I-140? If I go with EB3 I140, can I amend my application at a later point of time with EB2 I 140? Please help.
Hi guys, I have a approved EB3 I-140 with PD of May 2004. I recently applied a new EB2 I-140 under the PP to port PD and got RFE. RFE has been replied by my lawyer on 07/06 and we are waiting for their decision any moment.Now, as I am going to apply my I-485, what will be my best bet? to go with approved EB3 I 140 or go with receipt notice of pending PP EB2 I-140? If I go with EB3 I140, can I amend my application at a later point of time with EB2 I 140? Please help.
jaytubati
05-12 09:14 PM
gangadhargs ,
Did you get for Finger printing for both I485 ?
I got Finger printing for both. For the first I485 , I gave Finger printing in Mar 08. Now I got it for second.
Please advise ...
Thanks
Did you get for Finger printing for both I485 ?
I got Finger printing for both. For the first I485 , I gave Finger printing in Mar 08. Now I got it for second.
Please advise ...
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj4sUSswt-MxlDyOOfvAZWVniPG-k3pKqDzM6nkapaaVOHbg4eUXvo1LyFxyRAHrtEiC7r3M6ZDZVZ-wCcxn0rDabIh2eYMweFqagi_2byzplyml_oaeX_EnugxpYuVTlqLKhY69vrqYb7/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj4sUSswt-MxlDyOOfvAZWVniPG-k3pKqDzM6nkapaaVOHbg4eUXvo1LyFxyRAHrtEiC7r3M6ZDZVZ-wCcxn0rDabIh2eYMweFqagi_2byzplyml_oaeX_EnugxpYuVTlqLKhY69vrqYb7/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
fide_champ
02-15 09:19 AM
What you are talking about is an automatic visa revalidation. You can re-enter the US from Canada on an expired visa if you have a valid I-94 and h1 extension. However, if you visa stamping is denied for any reason while being in Canada, you will NOT be able to re-enter anymore. Usually, the consular officer takes away your I94 or makes a note that a visa was not issued. At that point, you need a valid, unexpired visa to re-enter the US, or you have to go to your home country for visa stamping.
G
Thanks. One more question. Does the automatic visa revalidation apply to all country nationals. does it apply for an indian national?
G
Thanks. One more question. Does the automatic visa revalidation apply to all country nationals. does it apply for an indian national?
more...
tapukakababa
07-13 10:17 AM
Done
rameshvaid
03-19 06:13 PM
I went to US Consulate Montreal Canada yesterday and they held back my passport, Copy of LC, Originals of my I 485 and H1/H4. They told me your company is too small 7-8 employees and need to search the company. I had my H1/H4's got stamped in Toronto in 2005 without any problem.
My I 140 is approved in June 06, Submitted I 485 in June/July 07 got EAD Cards in Oct.-07. I also got my 3 years H1/H4 approvals on Jan-18th, 08.
Any idea how much time they are going to check the status of the company? Does the size of the company really matters? I am paid regularily and my company is a real estate investment firm, due to recent recession the profit of the company is low as compared to previous years. Will this make any difference. I am EB 3 with priority date July 30th, 2003.
Any advise?? Has some one been in the same situation. My older son is in college and has exams on Monday? Any thoughts/suggestions.
RV
My I 140 is approved in June 06, Submitted I 485 in June/July 07 got EAD Cards in Oct.-07. I also got my 3 years H1/H4 approvals on Jan-18th, 08.
Any idea how much time they are going to check the status of the company? Does the size of the company really matters? I am paid regularily and my company is a real estate investment firm, due to recent recession the profit of the company is low as compared to previous years. Will this make any difference. I am EB 3 with priority date July 30th, 2003.
Any advise?? Has some one been in the same situation. My older son is in college and has exams on Monday? Any thoughts/suggestions.
RV
more...
enthu999
07-17 12:50 PM
your comments are very helpful.
lecter
February 17th, 2005, 03:29 AM
I don't know what you were all talking about, or why. But it sounds cool. I might get a tape measure out and see how long my lens is . . .
(joke)
gotta love this place!!!
Rob
(joke)
gotta love this place!!!
Rob