venky321
01-14 07:15 AM
The best thing an individual can do is look for a full time job and not worry about things not in his control. I cannot imagine that they will cancel existing visas, so those who have time on their visas left are probably safe.....for now.
If they are going to phase out of IT contractors from H1B visas by denying all new extensions or new visas, then they will be positions that need to be filled. While they might be a lot of unemployed American programmers they might lack the skills the newest technologies.
Other than that, this could be a great opportunity for Indian companies as large IT implementations might be completely outsourced now; if companies are unable to staff their projects with H1Bs here.
If they are going to phase out of IT contractors from H1B visas by denying all new extensions or new visas, then they will be positions that need to be filled. While they might be a lot of unemployed American programmers they might lack the skills the newest technologies.
Other than that, this could be a great opportunity for Indian companies as large IT implementations might be completely outsourced now; if companies are unable to staff their projects with H1Bs here.
wallpaper tattoo the voice tv show
weasley
08-16 06:31 PM
SK2006 and snathan:
I do not agree.
First, there is no "profiling" in India. Everyone gets frisked and security at airports in India is top class.
Rules are rules, provided they apply equally to americans and Indians. otherwise its profiling or discrimination.
In 2000 December, I was travelling to Sydney from Mumbai Airport. I was held and later interviewed separately by a Tamil Speaking officer. Just because my name resembled like Srilankan Tamil. They wanted to ensure that I am not LTTE/or refugee travelling to Australia. Well, I was not offended. I just thought if these idiots have been careful before then would have avoided assasination of Rajiv Gandhi.
I do not agree.
First, there is no "profiling" in India. Everyone gets frisked and security at airports in India is top class.
Rules are rules, provided they apply equally to americans and Indians. otherwise its profiling or discrimination.
In 2000 December, I was travelling to Sydney from Mumbai Airport. I was held and later interviewed separately by a Tamil Speaking officer. Just because my name resembled like Srilankan Tamil. They wanted to ensure that I am not LTTE/or refugee travelling to Australia. Well, I was not offended. I just thought if these idiots have been careful before then would have avoided assasination of Rajiv Gandhi.
alisa
02-13 08:28 PM
I don't think there is much I disagree with you. You are right about most things. Especiallly, that it is not an exact science. A lot depends upon how many applicants there are, and how many numbers are increased, and how much the country limits are increased by.
I also don't think that the country limits will go away totally. They will probably just increase them. But you never know. Espeically, because at some point, they will go to the point system, and then who knows whats going to happen to us.
Also, its not that I am concerned about what is GOOD JUST FOR ME. (BTW, its not just me, its about a third of IV) I am more worried about what is bad for me.
Again, there are no guarantees which of the 3 will get passed or accepted. 1 & 2 benefit you more than 3. Will be combined effect of those be more than enough to offset 3 (which I doubt will ever happen since that will require a change in law) is up to anyone's imagination.
Will you stop supporting IV which is trying to improve ALL legal immigrants prospects of getting a green card because one item on their agenda MAY DO more harm to you than good is your prerogative.
However, IMHO saying that 3 hurts you and hence you will not support IV is the same as those people who in July were crying because everyone was getting to file 485s and hence would lengthen the GC processing queue. I was in fact not benefiting too much from that but I supported it since having been in the queue for long enough I know how painful it is.
Like lot of other people on this forum said, try to rise above what is GOOD FOR ME and I will only support IV if it does ONLY that. Someday there might be a law that affects you more than the majority and you will need the all legal immigrants voice to help you out.
I also don't think that the country limits will go away totally. They will probably just increase them. But you never know. Espeically, because at some point, they will go to the point system, and then who knows whats going to happen to us.
Also, its not that I am concerned about what is GOOD JUST FOR ME. (BTW, its not just me, its about a third of IV) I am more worried about what is bad for me.
Again, there are no guarantees which of the 3 will get passed or accepted. 1 & 2 benefit you more than 3. Will be combined effect of those be more than enough to offset 3 (which I doubt will ever happen since that will require a change in law) is up to anyone's imagination.
Will you stop supporting IV which is trying to improve ALL legal immigrants prospects of getting a green card because one item on their agenda MAY DO more harm to you than good is your prerogative.
However, IMHO saying that 3 hurts you and hence you will not support IV is the same as those people who in July were crying because everyone was getting to file 485s and hence would lengthen the GC processing queue. I was in fact not benefiting too much from that but I supported it since having been in the queue for long enough I know how painful it is.
Like lot of other people on this forum said, try to rise above what is GOOD FOR ME and I will only support IV if it does ONLY that. Someday there might be a law that affects you more than the majority and you will need the all legal immigrants voice to help you out.
2011 The cast of record-breaking TV
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
more...
snthampi
08-02 04:38 PM
Same here. Let us give green to each other and make us very green. How about that?:)
I agree and will do.
I agree and will do.
rbalaji5
03-30 02:02 PM
So yo unever know this guys when they will change and what. I need food when I am hungry and need a place to place to sleep when I am tired. I dont care whether Rama has temple or not.
Congress Ruled us more years than BJP since we got independence.
Still you are hungry , looking for food and looking for a place to sleep.
Change We Need. Letz try BJP or Lalu ( :=) this time.
Congress Ruled us more years than BJP since we got independence.
Still you are hungry , looking for food and looking for a place to sleep.
Change We Need. Letz try BJP or Lalu ( :=) this time.
more...
vamsi_poondla
02-14 12:06 PM
I do not support law suit for two reasons,
1) I do not believe that lawsuit will bring a positive decision that benefits the whole community.
2) I do not know any of those who tells that they support lawsuits, their level of commitment for becoming plaintiffs, commit the $s, time and energy
I dont care if USCIS scrutinizes those plaintiffs applications closely. They can and they should. Those who are in such a good strong GC cases alone can come forward and participate because if it is legal battle, every thing is fair on both parties to use all legal means to weaken other party.
You can stretch a government agency only to certain extent. No one can prove that USCIS intentionally took decisions so that they waste the visas. Just like my client cannot sue me for the bugs I introduced in my code.(in my good developer days). At the most court might ask agency to prove that they improved the process which USCIS can prove easily.
I urge all members to understand the reasons why we should not support lawsuit. It is not a true consumer rights issue. It is a government agency with limited resources, ideas and priorities.
Finally, what is it to the community on the whole - recapture of unused numbers. Then what whoever gets GC will be happy with their life and what about other deserving GC aspirants. As an organization, our objectives are very clear - we are pro-legal immigration, grass-roots organization for GC Reforms. We believe in lobbying. We believe in making the agencies improve the process, work with congress to increase numbers/ remove country caps, believe in the benefits of legal highly skilled immigration. If the idea is to benefit those 20% before 2004/2005 and not the whole community, I think it is selfish.
I believe in IV strength, IV core principles, IV approach and IV leadership maturity. Every scenario is carefully thought, researched and evaluated even before turning down that idea.
Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. IV is the kind of organization which keeps the failure attempts also transparent and keeps the members in loop. It also introspects what went wrong and changes the course in next step. Admin relief is the first and foremost priority for us. next is increased lobbying with lawmakers.
1) I do not believe that lawsuit will bring a positive decision that benefits the whole community.
2) I do not know any of those who tells that they support lawsuits, their level of commitment for becoming plaintiffs, commit the $s, time and energy
I dont care if USCIS scrutinizes those plaintiffs applications closely. They can and they should. Those who are in such a good strong GC cases alone can come forward and participate because if it is legal battle, every thing is fair on both parties to use all legal means to weaken other party.
You can stretch a government agency only to certain extent. No one can prove that USCIS intentionally took decisions so that they waste the visas. Just like my client cannot sue me for the bugs I introduced in my code.(in my good developer days). At the most court might ask agency to prove that they improved the process which USCIS can prove easily.
I urge all members to understand the reasons why we should not support lawsuit. It is not a true consumer rights issue. It is a government agency with limited resources, ideas and priorities.
Finally, what is it to the community on the whole - recapture of unused numbers. Then what whoever gets GC will be happy with their life and what about other deserving GC aspirants. As an organization, our objectives are very clear - we are pro-legal immigration, grass-roots organization for GC Reforms. We believe in lobbying. We believe in making the agencies improve the process, work with congress to increase numbers/ remove country caps, believe in the benefits of legal highly skilled immigration. If the idea is to benefit those 20% before 2004/2005 and not the whole community, I think it is selfish.
I believe in IV strength, IV core principles, IV approach and IV leadership maturity. Every scenario is carefully thought, researched and evaluated even before turning down that idea.
Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. IV is the kind of organization which keeps the failure attempts also transparent and keeps the members in loop. It also introspects what went wrong and changes the course in next step. Admin relief is the first and foremost priority for us. next is increased lobbying with lawmakers.
2010 TV Interviews. #39;The Voice#
raysaikat
07-16 09:03 PM
This whole thread is speculation, your basic assumption itself is wrong. The horizonal spill over is not a permanent policy or trend which will be practised. You should read the INA law clearly. But if this speculation makes you happy, enjoy! :)
It is a "permanent" policy. There was no change in the law. USCIS was interpreting the law incorrectly. Now they have corrected themselves with the congressional input. This will not change.
There could of course be a new law and then things might change.
It is a "permanent" policy. There was no change in the law. USCIS was interpreting the law incorrectly. Now they have corrected themselves with the congressional input. This will not change.
There could of course be a new law and then things might change.
more...
jonty_11
06-28 12:33 PM
"expecting retrogresson ....in first wk of July... " ??
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
hair images tattoo the voice tv
snathan
03-30 02:08 PM
May I know who is that redard gave me red...?
more...
nik.patelc
09-03 03:09 PM
Most of the Indian politicians are Illiterate. This guy is a medical doctor by profession.
Loved by poor people. Hated by the fundamentalists and Naxals. Most of the AP politicians are corrupt including former PM P.V. N RAO.
I AM NOT FROM AP. ALL I KNOW FROM READING ONLINE FROM THE LAST 2 DAYS.
SEE THE LINK 14 PEOPLE DIE OF SHOCK.
14 die of YSR shock in Andhra - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/14-die-of-YSR-shock-in-Andhra/articleshow/4969157.cms)
USA, UK CONDOLE YSR DEATH.
US, France, UK condole Reddy's death - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/US-France-UK-condole-Reddys-death/articleshow/4969149.cms)
You must have read it on TIMES or NDTV , both are equally unehitical as indian politicians
Loved by poor people. Hated by the fundamentalists and Naxals. Most of the AP politicians are corrupt including former PM P.V. N RAO.
I AM NOT FROM AP. ALL I KNOW FROM READING ONLINE FROM THE LAST 2 DAYS.
SEE THE LINK 14 PEOPLE DIE OF SHOCK.
14 die of YSR shock in Andhra - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/14-die-of-YSR-shock-in-Andhra/articleshow/4969157.cms)
USA, UK CONDOLE YSR DEATH.
US, France, UK condole Reddy's death - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/US-France-UK-condole-Reddys-death/articleshow/4969149.cms)
You must have read it on TIMES or NDTV , both are equally unehitical as indian politicians
hot Robert Wagner to voice Charlie
deepakd
07-11 01:43 PM
Guys
On the sameline, I think no one is crazy about anything but material wealth for self.
Take my example, GOV of India spent lot of money on me so that I get a degree from IIT and here I am in USA salivating over GC dreams.
If I would be kicked out of USA, I may move to Canada, if I kicked out of Canada then to Australia and it would continue............
Aptly quoted fot this situation ( sorry for hindi language)
GC ne jalim Kutta banaa diya
Warna hum bhi the addme izzat ke
On the sameline, I think no one is crazy about anything but material wealth for self.
Take my example, GOV of India spent lot of money on me so that I get a degree from IIT and here I am in USA salivating over GC dreams.
If I would be kicked out of USA, I may move to Canada, if I kicked out of Canada then to Australia and it would continue............
Aptly quoted fot this situation ( sorry for hindi language)
GC ne jalim Kutta banaa diya
Warna hum bhi the addme izzat ke
more...
house The new reality TV show “The
oliTwist
06-14 12:44 PM
For most of the ppl with hateful comments, Reality sucks and bites back. I agree with dilip and unfortunately, among billions voices and opinions dont matter. Just brutal personal attacks.
That said. We cant stop the outsourcing and dumping. Today is biilions from India and china and tomorrow rest of billions from rest of world (like Africa and rest).
If you dont have any proper counter argument, dont post. Period, dont stoop to personal attack.(race,caste,place and commutiy and alma mater).
Grow up folks.
That said. We cant stop the outsourcing and dumping. Today is biilions from India and china and tomorrow rest of billions from rest of world (like Africa and rest).
If you dont have any proper counter argument, dont post. Period, dont stoop to personal attack.(race,caste,place and commutiy and alma mater).
Grow up folks.
tattoo hot hairstyles The Voice TV
lazycis
02-13 05:04 PM
See extract from Ombudsman's report
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annualrpt07__June_11_2007_section3e_untimel yprocessing.pdf
218,759 visas are available for recapture and those numbers were lost due to systematic agency delays and bad policies (i.e. name check).
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annualrpt07__June_11_2007_section3e_untimel yprocessing.pdf
218,759 visas are available for recapture and those numbers were lost due to systematic agency delays and bad policies (i.e. name check).
more...
pictures the voice tv show judges.
krishnam70
07-10 06:58 PM
yes there are numerous articles about that too. Atleast for IT folks things are ok
dresses the voice tv show contestants.
nc14
07-03 10:44 PM
GO IV GO!!
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
please DIGG
Thank you
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
please DIGG
Thank you
more...
makeup the voice tv show dia frampton
rkartik78
07-18 05:55 PM
Dear Attorney,
I work in a Semiconductor company in Arizona. My company filed for my Labor and i140 (i140 approved in july 2008). Last July, I filed i485 for me and my wife. My H1B expired in May of 2008 and I am now on EAD status. I want to take up a part time job during weekends and weekdays after my Primary work hours. This new job is in no way connected to what I do in my primary job duties and is totally different from the description given in the labor cert. I want to know if it would be ok for me to take up such a part time job and make sure that no problem arises during my i-485 adjudication.
Thanks
I work in a Semiconductor company in Arizona. My company filed for my Labor and i140 (i140 approved in july 2008). Last July, I filed i485 for me and my wife. My H1B expired in May of 2008 and I am now on EAD status. I want to take up a part time job during weekends and weekdays after my Primary work hours. This new job is in no way connected to what I do in my primary job duties and is totally different from the description given in the labor cert. I want to know if it would be ok for me to take up such a part time job and make sure that no problem arises during my i-485 adjudication.
Thanks
girlfriend makeup the voice tv show
chanduv23
06-28 08:56 PM
Maybe eb2, eb3 petitions are far less in number than "other worker" petitions. USCIS definitely has a rough idea of the number of petitions that could be filed. It may not be as bad in July, if such a situation happens it may happen in August
Is there anything we can do at this time - probably nothing unless such thing happens.
Wow, we talk about employers, managers, lawyers etc..... but look at USCIS - the biggest culprit. As long as it is related to immigrants - they can do anything and get away?
Is there anything we can do at this time - probably nothing unless such thing happens.
Wow, we talk about employers, managers, lawyers etc..... but look at USCIS - the biggest culprit. As long as it is related to immigrants - they can do anything and get away?
hairstyles 2010 Tv show.Nbc tv The Voice
WeldonSprings
09-15 02:16 PM
Here is what I researched and found out-
From the data for India
For Permanent applications 2004 => Reduction in Recruitment (EB2 cases)
From 1 April 1004 to 16 August 2004 => 430 appox(All countries)
No data from 17 August 2004 to 28 February 2005.
From 01 March 2005 to 30 September 2005, For Level III- 263 For Level IV-271
= 500 approx.
For 01 October 2005 to March 2006, For Level III- 2500, Level IV-1770
= 4300 approx.
Now, of the GCs approved last Aug.08 and Sept.08 were from the Texas Service Center.
That meant Atlanta Processing Center was the Labor Approval Center.
So, For 01 October 2005 to March 2006
For Level III- 1100, Level IV-770.
So, total left = (2500-1100) + (1770-770) = 1400 + 1100= 2500
Therefore toatl from 01 April 2004 to Mar. 2006=>
430(2004) + 400(mystery number from 16 Aug. 04 to 01 March 2005) + 500(2005) +2500(2006)= 3900 principal applicants.
Multiply by 2 for dependents = 7800 EB2 India pending before Mar. 06.
Please comment on my analysis or feel free to ask questions.
From the data for India
For Permanent applications 2004 => Reduction in Recruitment (EB2 cases)
From 1 April 1004 to 16 August 2004 => 430 appox(All countries)
No data from 17 August 2004 to 28 February 2005.
From 01 March 2005 to 30 September 2005, For Level III- 263 For Level IV-271
= 500 approx.
For 01 October 2005 to March 2006, For Level III- 2500, Level IV-1770
= 4300 approx.
Now, of the GCs approved last Aug.08 and Sept.08 were from the Texas Service Center.
That meant Atlanta Processing Center was the Labor Approval Center.
So, For 01 October 2005 to March 2006
For Level III- 1100, Level IV-770.
So, total left = (2500-1100) + (1770-770) = 1400 + 1100= 2500
Therefore toatl from 01 April 2004 to Mar. 2006=>
430(2004) + 400(mystery number from 16 Aug. 04 to 01 March 2005) + 500(2005) +2500(2006)= 3900 principal applicants.
Multiply by 2 for dependents = 7800 EB2 India pending before Mar. 06.
Please comment on my analysis or feel free to ask questions.
gc_in_30_yrs
10-03 11:42 AM
Hi All,
One company offered me pre-approved labour, with PD as Dec-2004. They are mentioning that I can file i140 immediately as soon as
my H1-B transffered to new company.
I have been hearing the news about LC substitution elimination from DOL.
Has they announced any dead line for filing the Labor Substitutions ? or expecting soon.
Has they announced any validity period on approved LCs to regularise this process?
If yes - How is it going to effect my case?
Is it better to take this LC( all the criteria required for sub is matched) or apply a new labour under PERM process.
Currently I am in my first H1-B and valid till Oct 2007.
Please need experts advice in this regard.
Thanks,
BNR.
there should not be any problem for you. but it is discouraged to go for labor substitution as it is literally jumping the line. there are so many people waiting for their LC and someone came in line just now taking pd from 2004 or before will definately pisses them off. otherwise, you should be okay to take that one.
One company offered me pre-approved labour, with PD as Dec-2004. They are mentioning that I can file i140 immediately as soon as
my H1-B transffered to new company.
I have been hearing the news about LC substitution elimination from DOL.
Has they announced any dead line for filing the Labor Substitutions ? or expecting soon.
Has they announced any validity period on approved LCs to regularise this process?
If yes - How is it going to effect my case?
Is it better to take this LC( all the criteria required for sub is matched) or apply a new labour under PERM process.
Currently I am in my first H1-B and valid till Oct 2007.
Please need experts advice in this regard.
Thanks,
BNR.
there should not be any problem for you. but it is discouraged to go for labor substitution as it is literally jumping the line. there are so many people waiting for their LC and someone came in line just now taking pd from 2004 or before will definately pisses them off. otherwise, you should be okay to take that one.
ujjvalkoul
10-04 11:16 AM
You can apply for Canadian PR while staying in the USA if you can demonstrate that you have entered the USA legally and stayed in the country legally for at least one year. That's what Canadian law says. I'm too lazy to look for the actual law -- just google it. ;)
You can apply for the Canadian citizenship after staying in Canada for three years out of four. Of these three years, you must be a PR for at least two years.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/becoming-howto.html
Yes... at the time of application the H1B should be valid for at least 1 year.... I got my papers returned to me coz of this. I reapplied once I renewd my H1 for 3 more yrs
You can apply for the Canadian citizenship after staying in Canada for three years out of four. Of these three years, you must be a PR for at least two years.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/becoming-howto.html
Yes... at the time of application the H1B should be valid for at least 1 year.... I got my papers returned to me coz of this. I reapplied once I renewd my H1 for 3 more yrs
No comments:
Post a Comment