- Nike Air Max 2011
- Nike Air Max 2011 Womens: Nike
- Womens Nike Air Max 2011 Black
- Air Max 2011 Mesh Black Silver
- Nike Air Max 2011
- nike air max 2011 womens rose
- nike air max 2011.
- Nike Air Max 2011+ February
- nike air max 2011 womens sky
- Nike Air Max 2011 Men - Black/
- Mens Nike Air Max 2011 Black
- Nike Air Max 2011 Black Red
- Mens Nike Air Max 2011 Mesh
- Nike air max 2011 running shoe
- Nike Air Max 2011 White Blue
- Nike Air Max 2011 Black Green
- Nike Air Max 2011
- Womens Nike Air Max 2011
- Womens Nike Air Max 2011
images Nike Air Max 2011+ February 
wallpaper Nike Air Max 2011
2011 Nike Air Max 2011 Womens: Nike
more...
more...
2010 Womens Nike Air Max 2011 Black
more...
hair Air Max 2011 Mesh Black Silver
more...
hot Nike Air Max 2011
more...
house Nike Air Max 2011
tattoo nike air max 2011 womens rose
more...
pictures nike air max 2011.
dresses Nike Air Max 2011 Black Red
more...
makeup nike air max 2011 womens sky
girlfriend Nike air max 2011 running shoe
hairstyles Mens Nike Air Max 2011 Black
Source URL: http://bestcellebrity.blogspot.com/2011/06/nike-air-max-2011.html
Visit Best cellebrity for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
pappu
08-21 10:21 AM
Its a window of opportunity for us.
lets all email the following expressing support and hoping for some relief measues for highly educated skilled immigrants.:
===
Wite email addresed to:
Harold McGraw III
Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman, President & CEO, The McGraw-Hill Companies
info@businessroundtable.org
and co-address to any 1 of the following:
Edward B. Rust, Jr.
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, State Farm Insurance Companies
Kenneth I. Chenault
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, American Express Company
John J. Castellani
President, Business Roundtable
Larry D. Burton
Executive Director, Business Roundtable
Johanna I. Schneider
Executive Director, External Relations
====
then also email to the magazine that published this article expressing support for such initiative and hoping for something to be done this year before elections. send the letter to the editor so that editor can print in next issue right when this issue is debated on the floor (hopefully). This magazine is read by scientists and it will generate awareness in the community for our cause. Today the nation seems more inclined towards border security and enforcement rather than immigration reform bill. However increasing America's competitiveness in science and technology will have several supporters across party lines.
science_editors@aaas.org (general editorial queries)
science_letters@aaas.org (queries about letters to the editor)
send to both email ids
---
Members with good with writing skills please post your letter drafts on this thread so that others can also use your letter and can send it.
===
lets all email the following expressing support and hoping for some relief measues for highly educated skilled immigrants.:
===
Wite email addresed to:
Harold McGraw III
Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman, President & CEO, The McGraw-Hill Companies
info@businessroundtable.org
and co-address to any 1 of the following:
Edward B. Rust, Jr.
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, State Farm Insurance Companies
Kenneth I. Chenault
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, American Express Company
John J. Castellani
President, Business Roundtable
Larry D. Burton
Executive Director, Business Roundtable
Johanna I. Schneider
Executive Director, External Relations
====
then also email to the magazine that published this article expressing support for such initiative and hoping for something to be done this year before elections. send the letter to the editor so that editor can print in next issue right when this issue is debated on the floor (hopefully). This magazine is read by scientists and it will generate awareness in the community for our cause. Today the nation seems more inclined towards border security and enforcement rather than immigration reform bill. However increasing America's competitiveness in science and technology will have several supporters across party lines.
science_editors@aaas.org (general editorial queries)
science_letters@aaas.org (queries about letters to the editor)
send to both email ids
---
Members with good with writing skills please post your letter drafts on this thread so that others can also use your letter and can send it.
===
wallpaper Nike Air Max 2011
sanz
03-31 12:07 PM
Sen. Grassley calls for new L-1 visa probe
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
calboy78
11-10 01:55 PM
Hi friends,
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
2011 Nike Air Max 2011 Womens: Nike
speedo
08-05 11:49 AM
I filed 485 with G28 form and I just got the receipt yesterday.
Details:
I485 - Myselft & Wife filed on July 2nd 7:55 am NSC
Received receipts for both yesterday August 3rd.
Sit tight and relax, everyone will get theirs.
Details:
I485 - Myselft & Wife filed on July 2nd 7:55 am NSC
Received receipts for both yesterday August 3rd.
Sit tight and relax, everyone will get theirs.
more...
sonia_sd
09-24 03:45 PM
This is an excellent proposal, can't wait for it to happen. Is this news published somewhere?
yes, this was a speculation discussed in immigration-law.com check posts you will find it in July/Aug news there.
yes, this was a speculation discussed in immigration-law.com check posts you will find it in July/Aug news there.
pappu
07-01 08:21 PM
Let me tell you one thing, "You've got guts, buddy", Congrats on the bold move. not many people dare to do that.
Can he do so? - Theoratically yes, practically: highly unlikely.
if he is a typical consulting guy with less than 50 emps, he won't do it, because such employers almost always make "adjustments" that puts them in extremely weak spot during such law suits. here are some examples:
- a guy was laid off, his new employer sent him on a project even before filing for his H1 transfer
-many consulting companies do not pay salary while the guy is on "bench"
- they many times knowingly/unknowingly commit tax/accounting fraud or regulatory mistakes that can cause serius consequences
- a friend of mine was interrviewed by a client and when the result was positive, his new would be employer called him at a McDonalds and asked him to sign the contract right there (within 30 minute of meeting), and my friend did. Now most people won't see anything wrong in here. but a lawyer told me that my friend was not given enough time to read/understand a legal document and to talk to a lawyer ideally enough time is about 2 weeks. How many small consulting companies give 2 weeks when the interview at client is clear?
In your case, the end client is not your employer's client. Ask him to show the contract between him and the end client.
bottom line of the story is: there are many defenses that one can play and win the case and/or even put the employer in trouble. That's why most small employers don't do much beyond sending a lawyer's notice (just to scare you enough to write down a check). A real nasty guy can even go one step further and file a law suit only to withdraw it later if you decide to fiight it.
Good luck buddy!
We do see such threads on the forum occasionally. There are several instances where members have posted negative comments about consulting companies and how employees are unhappy working for them.
I want to understand the reasons why people are not filing lawsuits against such companies yet? Why are we not reporting them to DOL and USCIS? Especially after filing I485 and expiry of 6 months, people are in a better position to file lawsuits against such employers.
IV can help only if people are willing to be helped and ready to take action.
If this system needs to be cleansed, then why aren't we doing it?
Can he do so? - Theoratically yes, practically: highly unlikely.
if he is a typical consulting guy with less than 50 emps, he won't do it, because such employers almost always make "adjustments" that puts them in extremely weak spot during such law suits. here are some examples:
- a guy was laid off, his new employer sent him on a project even before filing for his H1 transfer
-many consulting companies do not pay salary while the guy is on "bench"
- they many times knowingly/unknowingly commit tax/accounting fraud or regulatory mistakes that can cause serius consequences
- a friend of mine was interrviewed by a client and when the result was positive, his new would be employer called him at a McDonalds and asked him to sign the contract right there (within 30 minute of meeting), and my friend did. Now most people won't see anything wrong in here. but a lawyer told me that my friend was not given enough time to read/understand a legal document and to talk to a lawyer ideally enough time is about 2 weeks. How many small consulting companies give 2 weeks when the interview at client is clear?
In your case, the end client is not your employer's client. Ask him to show the contract between him and the end client.
bottom line of the story is: there are many defenses that one can play and win the case and/or even put the employer in trouble. That's why most small employers don't do much beyond sending a lawyer's notice (just to scare you enough to write down a check). A real nasty guy can even go one step further and file a law suit only to withdraw it later if you decide to fiight it.
Good luck buddy!
We do see such threads on the forum occasionally. There are several instances where members have posted negative comments about consulting companies and how employees are unhappy working for them.
I want to understand the reasons why people are not filing lawsuits against such companies yet? Why are we not reporting them to DOL and USCIS? Especially after filing I485 and expiry of 6 months, people are in a better position to file lawsuits against such employers.
IV can help only if people are willing to be helped and ready to take action.
If this system needs to be cleansed, then why aren't we doing it?
more...
desigirl
04-27 09:09 AM
2 bags or 1 - they are check in luggage - not to worry about it until she reaches India and gets a coolie to help her out.
I have seen many Indian ladies with toddlers, having 3-4 carry on luggage along with strollers - please make sure this does not happen. This is something that they have to hold on to for all the in between stops, and go through so many security checks...........It is painful to watch them struggle, and other passengers end up helping them.
I have seen many Indian ladies with toddlers, having 3-4 carry on luggage along with strollers - please make sure this does not happen. This is something that they have to hold on to for all the in between stops, and go through so many security checks...........It is painful to watch them struggle, and other passengers end up helping them.
2010 Womens Nike Air Max 2011 Black
americandesi
08-11 03:44 PM
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to “Ability to pay” and “AC21”
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
more...
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
hair Air Max 2011 Mesh Black Silver
getgreensoon1
04-07 01:26 PM
Tech firms warn of impacts of tight visa quota - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-firms-warn-of-impacts-of-tight-visa-quota-2011-04-07?siteid=rss&rss=1)
The problem is most of the visas are taken by indian bodyshops such as infosys, TCS, LT to bring underskilled computer operators to the US. Intel, MS and other good companies that hire from reputed US universities have hard time getting the visas due to the cap. The cap should work the other way round. 20K for bodyshops and 65K for people from US universities.
The problem is most of the visas are taken by indian bodyshops such as infosys, TCS, LT to bring underskilled computer operators to the US. Intel, MS and other good companies that hire from reputed US universities have hard time getting the visas due to the cap. The cap should work the other way round. 20K for bodyshops and 65K for people from US universities.
more...
jettu77
03-31 08:37 AM
Congratulations!
hot Nike Air Max 2011
wandmaker
08-06 11:27 AM
Case Details:
EB2-I PD: 1/2/06 485@ TSC - MD: 6/30/07 RD: 7/2/07 ND: 10/2/07 AD: 8/6/08
Directly Filed at TSC, Checks cashed but did not receive physical receipt notice
Sequence of Emails:
08/06: CRIS Email, Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident
08/07: Soft LUD
08/09: Soft LUD
08/11: Welcome Notice Received via USPS, Post marked 08/08
08/13: CRIS Email, Card Mailed.
08/14: Soft LUD
08/14: Received Cards in the mail, envelope post marked 08/12
To Whom may have COLTS:
- Opened SR for receipt notice in Dec 07
- Feb 08, Received a letter from USCIS stating that they will not be able to generate duplicate notice
- Feb 08, Called USCIS & referenced duplicate notice letter. IO has told me the name check got cleared on Nov 07.
- Applied for EAD renewal in 6/08, Received card on 7/08
- I-140 Soft LUD on 7/13/08
- No other LUDs, Direct case status change on 8/6/08
- Made two calls to USCIS one on 12/07 and another on 02/08 and did not make INFOPASS appointment.
EB2-I PD: 1/2/06 485@ TSC - MD: 6/30/07 RD: 7/2/07 ND: 10/2/07 AD: 8/6/08
Directly Filed at TSC, Checks cashed but did not receive physical receipt notice
Sequence of Emails:
08/06: CRIS Email, Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident
08/07: Soft LUD
08/09: Soft LUD
08/11: Welcome Notice Received via USPS, Post marked 08/08
08/13: CRIS Email, Card Mailed.
08/14: Soft LUD
08/14: Received Cards in the mail, envelope post marked 08/12
To Whom may have COLTS:
- Opened SR for receipt notice in Dec 07
- Feb 08, Received a letter from USCIS stating that they will not be able to generate duplicate notice
- Feb 08, Called USCIS & referenced duplicate notice letter. IO has told me the name check got cleared on Nov 07.
- Applied for EAD renewal in 6/08, Received card on 7/08
- I-140 Soft LUD on 7/13/08
- No other LUDs, Direct case status change on 8/6/08
- Made two calls to USCIS one on 12/07 and another on 02/08 and did not make INFOPASS appointment.
more...
house Nike Air Max 2011
Gravitation
11-19 10:30 AM
For July 2nd filers, the freedom is attained on Dec 29th (180 days after filing).
tattoo nike air max 2011 womens rose
arnet
08-23 06:41 PM
have always EAD/AP as your backup even if you have H1 visa (especially when you didnt have stamping or visa expires soon or if you have job uncertainity), it is safe as others suggested.....incase if you need EAD/AP for any emergency, you cant get these easily, it takes atleast 1-3 months for approval based on your processing center, so better apply atleast now...if you are working in EAD then it is better to apply for renewal before 4 months of expiry of current EAD/AP.
more...
pictures nike air max 2011.
mahujam
09-26 12:31 PM
Hi All,
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
My date was june 19th.
I got approval emails yesterday.
Yet to see the card.
Give it a few more days.
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
My date was june 19th.
I got approval emails yesterday.
Yet to see the card.
Give it a few more days.
dresses Nike Air Max 2011 Black Red
rrajasekar
08-11 09:38 AM
We have written a letter to our congressman asking if he could help expediting the process. They called us yesterday and said that they would try to do their best though they couldn't promise on the outcome.
more...
makeup nike air max 2011 womens sky
TheOmbudsman
09-05 04:04 PM
If you see the link I submitted earlier today, it is a reality that most voters are fed up with their representatives. From what I hear all the time, it seems the tendency is that people will vote against incumbents, regardless of which part they represent. Typically whoever is coming fresh - Dems or GOP - would be more sensitive to citizens problem and would think twice before voting for something in spite of thousands of pledges and calls against it. In my view, not necessarily Democrats would control the House, but even if turns out that is the case, it may not help us a lot. The truth is that if many incumbents get kicked out, that would be a powerful message that voters out there are not happy with directions they are taking, mainly on immigration, and therefore a bill on our behalf may continue to be dragged down further, because I strongly believe that many fresh reps would think twice to vote when phones are ringing non stop.
I am sorry if that is sad, but that is the truth.
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
I am sorry if that is sad, but that is the truth.
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
girlfriend Nike air max 2011 running shoe
karthkc
03-27 05:47 PM
I was on bench for 4 months in 2001. I have 2 times H1 transfer after that and visited India couple of times. I have regular pay stubs from 2002 onwards.
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
hairstyles Mens Nike Air Max 2011 Black
Project_A
05-16 08:17 AM
May I know if H1 transfer has any affect on parent�s arrival during the transfer? I sponsored their visa using company A's employment letters and they have a valid visa. Do I need to get a letter from my new employer to avoid issues at POE? At the time of parent�s arrival, I would be working for company A, but by the time they return, I will be switching to company B and moving to a different city. My H1 transfer is already in process.
maxy
04-28 09:43 AM
this renewal i believe will be with new fees, so will it be extended for 1 yr or 3 yrs ?
logiclife
06-01 07:04 PM
First of all, make sure you double check everything I say here with an immigration lawyer. I am not an immigration lawyer and my knowledge is based on forums like these.
Ok.
You still have another 2 months before you begin the last year of your initial 6-year H1 term.
If you new employer is willing to do H1, then FILE H1 as soon as possible. You will get a 3 year H1 term with your new employer based on your current 140 that is approved(with your current employer). The thing is - beyond the 6th year, you can get 3 year extensions of H1 if your 140 is approved(with someone, anyone, it doesnt have to be your employer at that time). Now, if you quit your current employer and go with new one and you end up getting only 1 year H1 with the new employer(in case if you cannot somehow use your current approved 140 to get a 3 year H1), then its still ok. But have your new employer start the new GC's labor right away. That way, you will have 365 days passed when your 6 year term is over in Aug 2007, making you eligible for 7th year of H1. This is very important.
Yes, if your old employer is going to withdraw your labor and 140, then your new employer will have to start GC from scratch. That begins with PERM labor. If you file under EB2, I think you can still transfer your priority date from your old EB3 labor and 140 to new EB2 process. (however, better make sure from a lawyer).
Ok.
You still have another 2 months before you begin the last year of your initial 6-year H1 term.
If you new employer is willing to do H1, then FILE H1 as soon as possible. You will get a 3 year H1 term with your new employer based on your current 140 that is approved(with your current employer). The thing is - beyond the 6th year, you can get 3 year extensions of H1 if your 140 is approved(with someone, anyone, it doesnt have to be your employer at that time). Now, if you quit your current employer and go with new one and you end up getting only 1 year H1 with the new employer(in case if you cannot somehow use your current approved 140 to get a 3 year H1), then its still ok. But have your new employer start the new GC's labor right away. That way, you will have 365 days passed when your 6 year term is over in Aug 2007, making you eligible for 7th year of H1. This is very important.
Yes, if your old employer is going to withdraw your labor and 140, then your new employer will have to start GC from scratch. That begins with PERM labor. If you file under EB2, I think you can still transfer your priority date from your old EB3 labor and 140 to new EB2 process. (however, better make sure from a lawyer).
Source URL: http://bestcellebrity.blogspot.com/2011/06/nike-air-max-2011.html
Visit Best cellebrity for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment