logiclife
05-29 12:54 PM
I tend to disagrees with your comments, firstly please dont call this a stupid event, as a lot of young students strive to win this competition. In order to lead you have to follow, I have come across some smart ass Indians who love to talk and give directions, but they miss whole chunk of substance in their directions. (I don't mean to target you or disrespect any one else up here).
Your commments on parents motivating their childeren to strive for success in their lives, their is nothing wrong in that, would you rather have them go smoke dope and jerk around to waste their time? I am indian and proud to be, , above all proud that my parents pushed me to excel and do better with the opportunities granted to me.
However it is some desi companies who brought in the trend of lying and faking to get thie ways. But believe me , they dont get much further in their lives. I am glad strict restrictions are imposed on these companies, and the type of consultants they bring on board.
Is it fair that the person doing Masters from this country be put in the same boat as a fresh of boat from India?
Good Luck!
The famous quote is: You can only fool me once!
I would further say, what is the difference between you and anti-immigrants in this matter ? You are saying that certain class of people should be kept out of the job market and you have your reasons. Since you are probably US educated, you want those who are non-US educated out of competition. Do not give me the BS reason that those with non-US education are the only ones that fake their resume. As far as faking the resume goes, or bragging goes, its up to the individual. It could be anyone, including Presidents that fake resumes or pad it with embellishments.
The anti-immigrants are saying that they were born here so those who were not born here should be kept of out the job market to reduce competition (and spur wage inflation, which they would call fair wages, but its really wage inflation, the kind that drowned GM and Chrysler).
Would it not behoove you to say that the decision of who should be hired and who shouldn't be hired must be deferred to the employers and not the Government or any other special interest ? As an employer, are they not the most capable party here to make that decision and evaluate their options ? Shouldn't people who create wealth (employers, businesses) have the prerogative to decide who they want to hire to help them create wealth ?
Your commments on parents motivating their childeren to strive for success in their lives, their is nothing wrong in that, would you rather have them go smoke dope and jerk around to waste their time? I am indian and proud to be, , above all proud that my parents pushed me to excel and do better with the opportunities granted to me.
However it is some desi companies who brought in the trend of lying and faking to get thie ways. But believe me , they dont get much further in their lives. I am glad strict restrictions are imposed on these companies, and the type of consultants they bring on board.
Is it fair that the person doing Masters from this country be put in the same boat as a fresh of boat from India?
Good Luck!
The famous quote is: You can only fool me once!
I would further say, what is the difference between you and anti-immigrants in this matter ? You are saying that certain class of people should be kept out of the job market and you have your reasons. Since you are probably US educated, you want those who are non-US educated out of competition. Do not give me the BS reason that those with non-US education are the only ones that fake their resume. As far as faking the resume goes, or bragging goes, its up to the individual. It could be anyone, including Presidents that fake resumes or pad it with embellishments.
The anti-immigrants are saying that they were born here so those who were not born here should be kept of out the job market to reduce competition (and spur wage inflation, which they would call fair wages, but its really wage inflation, the kind that drowned GM and Chrysler).
Would it not behoove you to say that the decision of who should be hired and who shouldn't be hired must be deferred to the employers and not the Government or any other special interest ? As an employer, are they not the most capable party here to make that decision and evaluate their options ? Shouldn't people who create wealth (employers, businesses) have the prerogative to decide who they want to hire to help them create wealth ?
wallpaper jennifer aniston gq 2011.
yabadaba
10-13 04:39 PM
seems like people lost their interest in bulletin.. By the way I smell something becasue why its not released on Monday ?
maybe its your wife's cooking that you are smelling?
maybe its your wife's cooking that you are smelling?
gsc999
09-22 11:06 AM
Hi everyone.
I was part of the San Jose rally .. where there were about 300 odd people.
My neighbors had been to the immigration rally in Washington(flew from San Jose) and they said that there were about 1000 people there.
I have been following the immigration issues for sometime .. and I'm not very convinced that such small numbers can make the difference.
I'm not being a pessimist .. appreciate all the efforts that IV core undertakes .. but am totally unconvinced of major immigration changes. Looking at something like CIR being struck down .. after being on television for long and being debated .. I think we should get real.
Thank you
V
---
Vivache, thanks for sharing your views.
Spartan King Leonidas and 300 Spartans fought to the last man against Persian King Xerxes and his army of over one million soldiers. Aren't these stories that inspire us and generate admiration about those brave few.
Now, the 300 number at San Jose is incorrect. There were around 400 to 450 people there.
When flower campaign started it was just a few people. They never waited for a large number of people before starting. Others were inspired by their leadership. This effort became huge, even skeptics joined in, smitten by the contagious enthusiasm of rest of the members. Same with San Jose rally. We just had five days to do it, 450 people showed up, that is amazing.
These two small successful events were instrumental in change of July visa bulletin fiasco. This clearly demonstrates that your argument about small numbers can't make a difference is incorrect. We have a past precedent of successful outcome based on a small grassroot effort.
As Andrew Jackson said, "One man with courage makes a majority"
Lets be leaders rather than followers.
On the other hand if you still want larger numbers than join us, we need your help. We have a Nor. Cal yahoo group where you will meet a lot of motivated people. Your neighbor was part of a 35 or so people who flew from California.
PM me and send your phone number if you want to chat. I can explain in more detail.
I was part of the San Jose rally .. where there were about 300 odd people.
My neighbors had been to the immigration rally in Washington(flew from San Jose) and they said that there were about 1000 people there.
I have been following the immigration issues for sometime .. and I'm not very convinced that such small numbers can make the difference.
I'm not being a pessimist .. appreciate all the efforts that IV core undertakes .. but am totally unconvinced of major immigration changes. Looking at something like CIR being struck down .. after being on television for long and being debated .. I think we should get real.
Thank you
V
---
Vivache, thanks for sharing your views.
Spartan King Leonidas and 300 Spartans fought to the last man against Persian King Xerxes and his army of over one million soldiers. Aren't these stories that inspire us and generate admiration about those brave few.
Now, the 300 number at San Jose is incorrect. There were around 400 to 450 people there.
When flower campaign started it was just a few people. They never waited for a large number of people before starting. Others were inspired by their leadership. This effort became huge, even skeptics joined in, smitten by the contagious enthusiasm of rest of the members. Same with San Jose rally. We just had five days to do it, 450 people showed up, that is amazing.
These two small successful events were instrumental in change of July visa bulletin fiasco. This clearly demonstrates that your argument about small numbers can't make a difference is incorrect. We have a past precedent of successful outcome based on a small grassroot effort.
As Andrew Jackson said, "One man with courage makes a majority"
Lets be leaders rather than followers.
On the other hand if you still want larger numbers than join us, we need your help. We have a Nor. Cal yahoo group where you will meet a lot of motivated people. Your neighbor was part of a 35 or so people who flew from California.
PM me and send your phone number if you want to chat. I can explain in more detail.
2011 Jennifer+aniston+gq+2011
masterpua
05-19 11:02 PM
Guys, let's make sure we Facebook and Twitter this. And anything else you kids are using these days...
more...
immi2006
10-23 09:13 PM
What is ur PD ? and ur 140 dates ?
ita
12-30 07:34 PM
I have many times pondered on the strength/power of dollar value and I feel apart from factors like globalization/petro dollars most important factor is America's politics.
No matter who is in the White House, no matter what their domestic politics are, no matter what their agreement(s)/disagreement(s) are they follow a well established strategic template on the International arena always keeping their focus on fortifying their super power status/dollar strength.
Very fact that dollar value is not as low as it should be amidst the current crisis shows the value that dollar is enjoying(when compared to the value of the currencies of other economies that didn't actually collapse as did American economy) may not be the real value but a strategised value.
Watch this video on globalization (if you have not already watched as it was shared on this forum twice) though it's a bit long and seems like exaggeration at few spots(speaker himself says he may be exaggerating or something like that..) it helps one understand few things.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343898391323537541&ei=u6taSeqqN4H6qgK7k9WsBA&q=globalization+dollar+&hl=en
Also few facts from this video and some of those youtube videos on terrorism kind of throw another perspective to Iraq war and on the possible Iran strategy.
But as per the disintegration of America I agree with you...it just shows how some of those guys are still kind of smarting from the disintegration of the U.S.S.R and pepping themselves with such stories.
This is a bunch of baloney.
The US has the most trusted currency int he world(sometimes I wonder why, but the fact is it remains such or else its value should rationally be a lot lower right now).
No matter who is in the White House, no matter what their domestic politics are, no matter what their agreement(s)/disagreement(s) are they follow a well established strategic template on the International arena always keeping their focus on fortifying their super power status/dollar strength.
Very fact that dollar value is not as low as it should be amidst the current crisis shows the value that dollar is enjoying(when compared to the value of the currencies of other economies that didn't actually collapse as did American economy) may not be the real value but a strategised value.
Watch this video on globalization (if you have not already watched as it was shared on this forum twice) though it's a bit long and seems like exaggeration at few spots(speaker himself says he may be exaggerating or something like that..) it helps one understand few things.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343898391323537541&ei=u6taSeqqN4H6qgK7k9WsBA&q=globalization+dollar+&hl=en
Also few facts from this video and some of those youtube videos on terrorism kind of throw another perspective to Iraq war and on the possible Iran strategy.
But as per the disintegration of America I agree with you...it just shows how some of those guys are still kind of smarting from the disintegration of the U.S.S.R and pepping themselves with such stories.
This is a bunch of baloney.
The US has the most trusted currency int he world(sometimes I wonder why, but the fact is it remains such or else its value should rationally be a lot lower right now).
more...
ianlock
07-23 03:22 PM
The recorded message at NVC says that on july 2nd they generated the fee bill and it was sent to my attorny. How long does it normally take to get the fee bill through. We are in the last week of jully now that 21days so far.
any ideas/expected time frames???
Im EB3 row
London
any ideas/expected time frames???
Im EB3 row
London
2010 jennifer aniston gq 2011.
Omm
11-14 08:50 PM
I read in murthy.com that asking money for H1 b is illigal. below is the link for more info
http://murthy.com/news/n_hfraud.html
Fraud vs. Technical Violations
For purposes of the BFCA, fraud is defined as a willful misrepresentation, falsification, or omission of a material fact. Technical violations, essentially, are errors, omissions, and failures to comply that are not within the fraud definition.
�MurthyDotCom
Examples of items that were categorized as technical violations include instances of employers requiring H1B workers to pay filing fees that are designated by regulation to be the obligation of the employer, as well as the deduction of other H1B-related fees from employees' wages, and, thereby, reducing the wages of these H1B workers to levels below the LCA wage requirement. Other technical violations included general failure by employers to pay beneficiaries at least the prevailing wage for the occupations within their particular geographic locations as listed on the LCAs, employment of H1B workers in geographic locations not covered by valid LCAs, and the benching of H1B employees. The fact that these were characterized as technical violations does not mean that, if found to be intentional, they could not fall under the definition of fraud.
http://murthy.com/news/n_hfraud.html
Fraud vs. Technical Violations
For purposes of the BFCA, fraud is defined as a willful misrepresentation, falsification, or omission of a material fact. Technical violations, essentially, are errors, omissions, and failures to comply that are not within the fraud definition.
�MurthyDotCom
Examples of items that were categorized as technical violations include instances of employers requiring H1B workers to pay filing fees that are designated by regulation to be the obligation of the employer, as well as the deduction of other H1B-related fees from employees' wages, and, thereby, reducing the wages of these H1B workers to levels below the LCA wage requirement. Other technical violations included general failure by employers to pay beneficiaries at least the prevailing wage for the occupations within their particular geographic locations as listed on the LCAs, employment of H1B workers in geographic locations not covered by valid LCAs, and the benching of H1B employees. The fact that these were characterized as technical violations does not mean that, if found to be intentional, they could not fall under the definition of fraud.
more...
sledge_hammer
02-23 04:48 PM
Pot calling the kettle black! (or should I say brown?)
my dear.. pretentious pseudo middle class desi...
i know ppl like you...
you wear an armani to office but still carrying curd rice and pickel for lunch...
you rejoice the success of slumDOG..with your liberal friends...with a martini glass filled with water..in hand..because ur amma told u not to drink alcohaal..;)
according to u ...we are losers because we dont like being called a DOG in 21st century...
if you want to wag ur skinny brown ass ..eveytime SlumDOG is uttered..thats ur problem..
my dear.. pretentious pseudo middle class desi...
i know ppl like you...
you wear an armani to office but still carrying curd rice and pickel for lunch...
you rejoice the success of slumDOG..with your liberal friends...with a martini glass filled with water..in hand..because ur amma told u not to drink alcohaal..;)
according to u ...we are losers because we dont like being called a DOG in 21st century...
if you want to wag ur skinny brown ass ..eveytime SlumDOG is uttered..thats ur problem..
hair jennifer aniston gq mag
dallasdude
06-12 12:32 PM
This is my thought process (also referred by Ron G):
July 2007 brought in approximately 500K 485 cases.
We do not know how many cases were pending as of June 2007.
Fiscal year 2007-2008 USCIS used over 140K EB VISA numbers (I think it was around 155K).
Fiscal year 2008-2009 USCIS will use atleast 140K EB VISA numbers
so, 500K - 300K = 200K.
Assuming USICS approval rate is 85%; 75K of 500K are denied.
200K - 75K = 125K EB cases pending from the July 2007 cases.
Additions: from all current categories - may be 25 K in 2 years?
So, 150 K plus whatever that was pending as of June 2007.
So next fiscal year, 2009 if USCIS uses the quota 140 K, most or all of the 2007 filings will be cleared. If not EB3 I, definitely EB2 I and C, EB3 ROW will be cleared.
Depending on new filings, EB3 I might retrogress but retrogression might come within 3-4 years instead of current 8 years.
I strongly believe, beginning Jan 2010, dates for EB2 (I and C) will move forward heaps and bounds followed by EB3 ROW.
Good analysis.
Additions: from all current categories - may be 25 K in 2 years?
This is the key stat here. It all depends on how many apps that are in the current category now get filed in the next few years. If there are no more new EB applicants, we should see all pending apps to get approved in a year or two max. The 4 current categories now are EB1 ROW, EB1 India/China and EB2 ROW. If there are 140K apps coming in every year from these categories, we'll never see any movement for EB2/EB3. Anybody know the average number of applicants the last few years from these categories? From the recent news, we know that demand for EB1 India and EB1 China has grown substantially. In my opinion, setting a cutoff date for EB1 India/China would be the best thing for USCIS to do now. That will prevent any new visa usage for EB1 India/China and allow EB2 and EB3 categories to catch up.
July 2007 brought in approximately 500K 485 cases.
We do not know how many cases were pending as of June 2007.
Fiscal year 2007-2008 USCIS used over 140K EB VISA numbers (I think it was around 155K).
Fiscal year 2008-2009 USCIS will use atleast 140K EB VISA numbers
so, 500K - 300K = 200K.
Assuming USICS approval rate is 85%; 75K of 500K are denied.
200K - 75K = 125K EB cases pending from the July 2007 cases.
Additions: from all current categories - may be 25 K in 2 years?
So, 150 K plus whatever that was pending as of June 2007.
So next fiscal year, 2009 if USCIS uses the quota 140 K, most or all of the 2007 filings will be cleared. If not EB3 I, definitely EB2 I and C, EB3 ROW will be cleared.
Depending on new filings, EB3 I might retrogress but retrogression might come within 3-4 years instead of current 8 years.
I strongly believe, beginning Jan 2010, dates for EB2 (I and C) will move forward heaps and bounds followed by EB3 ROW.
Good analysis.
Additions: from all current categories - may be 25 K in 2 years?
This is the key stat here. It all depends on how many apps that are in the current category now get filed in the next few years. If there are no more new EB applicants, we should see all pending apps to get approved in a year or two max. The 4 current categories now are EB1 ROW, EB1 India/China and EB2 ROW. If there are 140K apps coming in every year from these categories, we'll never see any movement for EB2/EB3. Anybody know the average number of applicants the last few years from these categories? From the recent news, we know that demand for EB1 India and EB1 China has grown substantially. In my opinion, setting a cutoff date for EB1 India/China would be the best thing for USCIS to do now. That will prevent any new visa usage for EB1 India/China and allow EB2 and EB3 categories to catch up.
more...
looivy
10-01 06:22 PM
I and my wife are debating whether to apply OCI or PIO card for our son who was born in US and has a US passport. We both hold Indian passport.
Can you experts please suggest which is the better route? The Indian consulate phone number is of not much help. It just keeps going in infinite loop and does not connect to a real person.
Can you experts please suggest which is the better route? The Indian consulate phone number is of not much help. It just keeps going in infinite loop and does not connect to a real person.
hot Jennifer+aniston+gq+2011
sagar_nyc
06-29 05:10 PM
Only portion which makes sense in your post is your user name "Freedom_fighter" :D
I think IV should work on filing a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT for several reasons. Are we going to be coward legals waiting, for lazy folks at USCIS to undo the wrong they've done for so many years.
1. Blatant errors in the processing which has, destroyed , causing huge stress, trauma and what not to ppl waiting in limbo.
2. Inability to provide any insight on the basic timeline for any application. Look at the EB backlogs, they change there bulletin as if its a stock market, it can go forward or backward depending on the mood of the ppl working on any day.
3. Immigration is a burden on the legal immigrants, we pay for those ppl jobs. How can they offer such a sub-standard service, considering the hefty fees they charge from us.
4. The US constitution says " We the people", does not say "Legal Aliens" don't have any say or can't ask for justice.
5. We are legals, did not cross any border like those illegals, which this administration is so concerned about. We pay for services, not screw ups!
6. Lost EB visas for USCIS / DOS mis-handling.
7. Even if we loose the lawsuit, still we made our point. USCIS sucks! period
Ok now, i'm ready for all the red dots, who think that keeping quite will some how magically solve these problems. They need to be held accountable for what they've done.
Btw. I found this : ILW.COM - immigration news: Class Action Update Against USCIS Challenging Delays Contrary To Congressional Mandate (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2004,1116-khanna.shtm)
This was class-action lawsuit by Rajeev Khanna. Anybody know what happened with it?
I think IV should work on filing a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT for several reasons. Are we going to be coward legals waiting, for lazy folks at USCIS to undo the wrong they've done for so many years.
1. Blatant errors in the processing which has, destroyed , causing huge stress, trauma and what not to ppl waiting in limbo.
2. Inability to provide any insight on the basic timeline for any application. Look at the EB backlogs, they change there bulletin as if its a stock market, it can go forward or backward depending on the mood of the ppl working on any day.
3. Immigration is a burden on the legal immigrants, we pay for those ppl jobs. How can they offer such a sub-standard service, considering the hefty fees they charge from us.
4. The US constitution says " We the people", does not say "Legal Aliens" don't have any say or can't ask for justice.
5. We are legals, did not cross any border like those illegals, which this administration is so concerned about. We pay for services, not screw ups!
6. Lost EB visas for USCIS / DOS mis-handling.
7. Even if we loose the lawsuit, still we made our point. USCIS sucks! period
Ok now, i'm ready for all the red dots, who think that keeping quite will some how magically solve these problems. They need to be held accountable for what they've done.
Btw. I found this : ILW.COM - immigration news: Class Action Update Against USCIS Challenging Delays Contrary To Congressional Mandate (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2004,1116-khanna.shtm)
This was class-action lawsuit by Rajeev Khanna. Anybody know what happened with it?
more...
house hair g q jennifer aniston gq
JulyFiler
09-22 02:25 PM
----
Ok, now that you have negated all ideas from other people, we anxiously wait for your ideas :)
I am sure you are not just some reactive person who can only criticize but can also provide us with a solution.
Lets hear em.
I feel lobbying is the best way followed by occasional rallies.
And we need to do some high-profile lobbying. Like get the big companies involved. I hear these big companies have their own lobbying manager (Google has them) working full time. And they have deeper pockets than our $20 or $50.
Ok, now that you have negated all ideas from other people, we anxiously wait for your ideas :)
I am sure you are not just some reactive person who can only criticize but can also provide us with a solution.
Lets hear em.
I feel lobbying is the best way followed by occasional rallies.
And we need to do some high-profile lobbying. Like get the big companies involved. I hear these big companies have their own lobbying manager (Google has them) working full time. And they have deeper pockets than our $20 or $50.
tattoo Jennifer Aniston #39;GQ Cover#39;
indyanguy
10-02 08:25 PM
i am in the 3.a. situation. what does part time mean? can you really be working part time when you are a CEO, CFO, COO, CMO of a company? not that i am raising this questions... I want to continue to be in the 3.a. situation, but can the IO ask these questions? if i make revenue of $20000 (twenty thou) and profit of $2000 a year will that be considered enough for IO to think that my intention is to switch to my company after green card and hence no intention of continuing permanent employment? or is that number higher (or lower)...
I want to become a believer in your 3.a. statement... please let me know what you think.
If you are on 3a, you have neither used AC21 nor have you left your full time job (FT job that aligns with your LC). On EAD, you can do any number of jobs (ex: you can even work 2 part time jobs totally unrelated to your LC requirements ofcourse as long as you continue to be with your GC employer). Using this rationale, you should be fine starting a business and making profit in the part time.
In fact even those who were in 3 b were able to get their GC after an interview (Search for posts by the user "unitednations"). But, it's risky and best avoided.
Personally, I want to get into 3 a, but my 140 is still pending. I plan to approach my company to switch me to EAD as soon as my 140 gets approved.
PS: This is not legal advice. Please contact your attorney and do more research before taking any steps further.
I want to become a believer in your 3.a. statement... please let me know what you think.
If you are on 3a, you have neither used AC21 nor have you left your full time job (FT job that aligns with your LC). On EAD, you can do any number of jobs (ex: you can even work 2 part time jobs totally unrelated to your LC requirements ofcourse as long as you continue to be with your GC employer). Using this rationale, you should be fine starting a business and making profit in the part time.
In fact even those who were in 3 b were able to get their GC after an interview (Search for posts by the user "unitednations"). But, it's risky and best avoided.
Personally, I want to get into 3 a, but my 140 is still pending. I plan to approach my company to switch me to EAD as soon as my 140 gets approved.
PS: This is not legal advice. Please contact your attorney and do more research before taking any steps further.
more...
pictures Jennifer Aniston GQ Cover
desi3933
06-24 09:37 PM
desi3933 is right.
- While on a H1 or a L1 visa, one is expected to maintain a continous period of employment. If one is on a H1 visa and does not get paid, that individual automatically falls "out of status".
- It does not matter if the person has other seemingly valid visa stamps on his/her passport.
- The only highly-skilled dual intent visas that allow one to work, are the H1 and the L1, as far as I am aware of. Dependent visas do not allow one to work, such as H4 or L2. The only way one can work while being a dependent is if one has an EAD based on a pending AOS(I-485).
- If one is on a H1/L1 and wants to switch to say a dependent visa (H4 or L2), one has to submit a change of status form (I-539?). The person is assumed to be in "authorized status" until the change of status (or even an extension) occurs. If the COS or extension gets denied, the person is retroactively "out of status" from the original date of expiration on the previous visa.
This is correct ONLY if person is maintaining status at the time of application. If the person is out of status then filing change of status petition does not put him/her in status.
- Accruing over 180 days will entail a bar of 3 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
- Accruing over 365 days will entail a bar of 10 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
3/10 year ban applies to unlawful presence only and NOT for out of status. If I-94 date is passed, only then person starts accumulating unlawful presence. There is a BIG distinction between unlawful presence and out of status.
Also see the last paragraph on Rajiv's website here: http://www.immigration.com/faq/status.html
Under the current system, unfortunately, there is limited employee protection or even whistle-blowing, so seek a competent attorney's advice right away.
- Remember, the affected individual(in this case your wife) has a lot to lose if she leaves the US(ie cross the official border), even to visit Canada. Competent attorneys can help arrange for waivers from typically the home consulate(ie consulate in home country). Consulates in third countries do not entertain applicants for visa stamping or visa renewals if they have not maintained status
This is an issue ONLY if I-94 date is passed. Out of Status is not an issue for visa stamping (The key thing here is I-94 date).
- If the home consulate approves the said individual's visa renewal or new visa stamping, that individual can enter the US, however, there is lack of clarity on whether such a person will be finally able to "adjust status" to become a lawful permanent resident.
This is a SERIOUS matter requiring legal competent advice.
email me at "sertasheep at immigrationvoice dot org" if you have any followup questions.
NOTE: Immigration Voice does not purport this to be legal advice, and you are strongly advised to seek legal opinion. Employers, as a rule, must not ask for payment in any shape or form to produce paystubs. Immigration Voice always advocates abiding by the law, no matter how archaic they may be. As the applicant, the burden is on the individual to maintain status. Please do your research
SertaSheep -
See my comments in Blue above. There is a BIG distinction between unlawful presence and out of status.
The best way to get back into status is to re-enter in USA with the proper visa (h4/l2) visa stamp.
The I-485 can be denied if the person is out of status > 180 days (since last entry in USA) at the time of filing.
Paying employer for generating "pay stubs" can land one in deep trouble. PLEASE consult a good attorney before paying for pay stubs.
There are actions "missed" by Employers. But, that is beyond the scope of current discussion.
I will be writing a detailed note on how to handle out of status issues.
desi3933 at gmail.com
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
- While on a H1 or a L1 visa, one is expected to maintain a continous period of employment. If one is on a H1 visa and does not get paid, that individual automatically falls "out of status".
- It does not matter if the person has other seemingly valid visa stamps on his/her passport.
- The only highly-skilled dual intent visas that allow one to work, are the H1 and the L1, as far as I am aware of. Dependent visas do not allow one to work, such as H4 or L2. The only way one can work while being a dependent is if one has an EAD based on a pending AOS(I-485).
- If one is on a H1/L1 and wants to switch to say a dependent visa (H4 or L2), one has to submit a change of status form (I-539?). The person is assumed to be in "authorized status" until the change of status (or even an extension) occurs. If the COS or extension gets denied, the person is retroactively "out of status" from the original date of expiration on the previous visa.
This is correct ONLY if person is maintaining status at the time of application. If the person is out of status then filing change of status petition does not put him/her in status.
- Accruing over 180 days will entail a bar of 3 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
- Accruing over 365 days will entail a bar of 10 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
3/10 year ban applies to unlawful presence only and NOT for out of status. If I-94 date is passed, only then person starts accumulating unlawful presence. There is a BIG distinction between unlawful presence and out of status.
Also see the last paragraph on Rajiv's website here: http://www.immigration.com/faq/status.html
Under the current system, unfortunately, there is limited employee protection or even whistle-blowing, so seek a competent attorney's advice right away.
- Remember, the affected individual(in this case your wife) has a lot to lose if she leaves the US(ie cross the official border), even to visit Canada. Competent attorneys can help arrange for waivers from typically the home consulate(ie consulate in home country). Consulates in third countries do not entertain applicants for visa stamping or visa renewals if they have not maintained status
This is an issue ONLY if I-94 date is passed. Out of Status is not an issue for visa stamping (The key thing here is I-94 date).
- If the home consulate approves the said individual's visa renewal or new visa stamping, that individual can enter the US, however, there is lack of clarity on whether such a person will be finally able to "adjust status" to become a lawful permanent resident.
This is a SERIOUS matter requiring legal competent advice.
email me at "sertasheep at immigrationvoice dot org" if you have any followup questions.
NOTE: Immigration Voice does not purport this to be legal advice, and you are strongly advised to seek legal opinion. Employers, as a rule, must not ask for payment in any shape or form to produce paystubs. Immigration Voice always advocates abiding by the law, no matter how archaic they may be. As the applicant, the burden is on the individual to maintain status. Please do your research
SertaSheep -
See my comments in Blue above. There is a BIG distinction between unlawful presence and out of status.
The best way to get back into status is to re-enter in USA with the proper visa (h4/l2) visa stamp.
The I-485 can be denied if the person is out of status > 180 days (since last entry in USA) at the time of filing.
Paying employer for generating "pay stubs" can land one in deep trouble. PLEASE consult a good attorney before paying for pay stubs.
There are actions "missed" by Employers. But, that is beyond the scope of current discussion.
I will be writing a detailed note on how to handle out of status issues.
desi3933 at gmail.com
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
dresses Name: Aniston gq
kaarmaa
02-01 04:40 PM
You were right. It seems they have updated status today. My case got processed on 01/27. Now waiting for the documents
What was your received date on the receipt notice?
What was your received date on the receipt notice?
more...
makeup jennifer aniston gq 2011.
gc_on_demand
05-29 12:29 PM
Absolutely true, It is torturing the kids for the aspirations of the parents to be seen in the national TV and for award.
It is not the poor kids are not getting the award, it is the parent, especially it is the trend with indians.
why ? ask your kids to do same and see what you feel on that night. can your kids do same ? forget about torturing or anything for a moment. Didn't you see Nupur Lala a past winner where she is now ? if she was torture for that competition she would n't be in MIT. its a competition of brain power to me.
It is not the poor kids are not getting the award, it is the parent, especially it is the trend with indians.
why ? ask your kids to do same and see what you feel on that night. can your kids do same ? forget about torturing or anything for a moment. Didn't you see Nupur Lala a past winner where she is now ? if she was torture for that competition she would n't be in MIT. its a competition of brain power to me.
girlfriend jennifer aniston magazine
shivarajan
09-13 07:40 PM
ambiguous poll.... i haven't applied for gc (1485) yet and own a home.... still said 'yes'. Guess one more option should be present.
Having EAD (almost GC) is big relief than folks who don't.
Having EAD (almost GC) is big relief than folks who don't.
hairstyles images jennifer aniston gq
belmontboy
02-15 10:56 PM
2. How many consulting companies do you know do charge their candidates for filing H1 ? I haven't come accross any. It is illegal to do that. If someone is doing that, ICE is after them.
I am amused by your ignorance. :)
I am amused by your ignorance. :)
dish
03-27 11:05 AM
http://www.competeamerica.org/Passport_to_Prosperity_FINAL_07_20041.pdf
Have listed some immigrants who have made significant contributions
Have listed some immigrants who have made significant contributions
jthomas
09-23 01:36 AM
I think we should call and tell them that highly skilled legal immigrants are working for long time and the jobs are granted because there is a shortage of highly skilled immigrants in US. We are waiting just because of the inefficiency of USCIS.
This is from numberusa website on sept 18th with link on the home page.
H.R. 5882 � "Recapturing Unused Employer-Sponsored Visas"
This legislation is similar to the measure that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) used before Summer recess to hijack debate on E-Verify reauthorization. The bill�s sponsor, Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif), claims it would �recapture unused employer-sponsored visas� from as far back as 1991 and then add them to the current numerical cap of 140,000 employer-sponsored visas that are available each year. Current law, however, clearly states that any employer-sponsored visas not used in one year are allocated to the family-preference categories in the following year. That means that there are no �unused� visas from past years to �recapture.�
Moreover, these extra green cards would be for foreign workers to take engineering jobs, health care jobs, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs and just about every other job that Americans have been losing in this economy. In order to qualify, a foreign worker doesn't need more than 2 years of on-the-job training � and they aren't even required to have a high school diploma. Our country doesn't need these workers - our workers need these jobs!
Another problem i see here....
this ROY BECK is CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA is doing a backdoor calls directly to Harry Reid to kill this and other bills ....
Check his Today's Blog
Link (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/september-22-2008/e-verify-will-die-if-congress-doesnt-act.html)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has two honorable choices:
* No. 1: Go around Sen.Menendez who has a "hold" on H.R. 6633, the "clean" E-Verify re-authorization bill passed by the House. Sen. Reid can bring this back-room filibuster to the Senate floor for a vote. If he does this, there easily will be the 60 votes necessary to stop Menendez and allow an overwhelming majority vote to pass H.R. 6633. (Reid reportedly doesn't want to do this because he doesn't want to force some of his Democrats to have to go on record just before the election.)
* No. 2: Avoid a vote altogether by talking to Menendez privately, persuading him that what he is doing is threatening the reputation of the Democratic Party just before elections and get him to withdraw his "hold" on H.R. 6633. (This way, Reid could then bring H.R. 6633 to the floor in the "hot-wire" fashion which will pass by voice vote.)
Either way, the American worker and public wins. It is all about Reid doing one of those two things.
This is why we want you to put particular pressure on Democratic Senators to put an end to Menendez' shameful grandstanding. Fortunately, Senate Republicans are standing firm against Menendez.
The weakest and most vulnerable American workers -- and non-workers -- will benefit the most from your willingness to step forward and take action this week.
SEN. MENENDEZ' E-VERIFY BLACKMAIL DEAL
After we told you that some Republican Senate staffers were working with Sen. Menendez (D-N.J.) for massive increases in foreign workers, you hammered Republican offices for not holding the line for a "clean" E-Verify bill.
Your efforts really worked. By the end of this last week, Republican Senate staffs were going into negotiations with Democrats and making it clear they were united in oppositiion to a foreign-worker surge at this time of 5-year-high unemployment and financial industry collapse.
Sen. Menendez apparently is not bothered by the 5-year-high official unemployment rate -- or even by the 292,000 additional American workers who went on unemployment in August alone. He is insisting that if we keep E-Verify, then we have to add another 550,000 foreign workers next year to the 1.1 million immigrants already scheduled to come.
(AS A REMINDER: E-Verify is the central tool for taking away the job magnet from illegal immigration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to kill it so outlaw businesses will have more freedom to hire illegal workers. E-Verify is the on-line system that businesses can type into for each new hire and find out if they are an illegal alien.
(If you live in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia -- or any other of the places that have started mandating that businesses use E-Verify -- your efforts to combat illegal immigration will be halted. )
This is from numberusa website on sept 18th with link on the home page.
H.R. 5882 � "Recapturing Unused Employer-Sponsored Visas"
This legislation is similar to the measure that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) used before Summer recess to hijack debate on E-Verify reauthorization. The bill�s sponsor, Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif), claims it would �recapture unused employer-sponsored visas� from as far back as 1991 and then add them to the current numerical cap of 140,000 employer-sponsored visas that are available each year. Current law, however, clearly states that any employer-sponsored visas not used in one year are allocated to the family-preference categories in the following year. That means that there are no �unused� visas from past years to �recapture.�
Moreover, these extra green cards would be for foreign workers to take engineering jobs, health care jobs, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs and just about every other job that Americans have been losing in this economy. In order to qualify, a foreign worker doesn't need more than 2 years of on-the-job training � and they aren't even required to have a high school diploma. Our country doesn't need these workers - our workers need these jobs!
Another problem i see here....
this ROY BECK is CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA is doing a backdoor calls directly to Harry Reid to kill this and other bills ....
Check his Today's Blog
Link (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/september-22-2008/e-verify-will-die-if-congress-doesnt-act.html)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has two honorable choices:
* No. 1: Go around Sen.Menendez who has a "hold" on H.R. 6633, the "clean" E-Verify re-authorization bill passed by the House. Sen. Reid can bring this back-room filibuster to the Senate floor for a vote. If he does this, there easily will be the 60 votes necessary to stop Menendez and allow an overwhelming majority vote to pass H.R. 6633. (Reid reportedly doesn't want to do this because he doesn't want to force some of his Democrats to have to go on record just before the election.)
* No. 2: Avoid a vote altogether by talking to Menendez privately, persuading him that what he is doing is threatening the reputation of the Democratic Party just before elections and get him to withdraw his "hold" on H.R. 6633. (This way, Reid could then bring H.R. 6633 to the floor in the "hot-wire" fashion which will pass by voice vote.)
Either way, the American worker and public wins. It is all about Reid doing one of those two things.
This is why we want you to put particular pressure on Democratic Senators to put an end to Menendez' shameful grandstanding. Fortunately, Senate Republicans are standing firm against Menendez.
The weakest and most vulnerable American workers -- and non-workers -- will benefit the most from your willingness to step forward and take action this week.
SEN. MENENDEZ' E-VERIFY BLACKMAIL DEAL
After we told you that some Republican Senate staffers were working with Sen. Menendez (D-N.J.) for massive increases in foreign workers, you hammered Republican offices for not holding the line for a "clean" E-Verify bill.
Your efforts really worked. By the end of this last week, Republican Senate staffs were going into negotiations with Democrats and making it clear they were united in oppositiion to a foreign-worker surge at this time of 5-year-high unemployment and financial industry collapse.
Sen. Menendez apparently is not bothered by the 5-year-high official unemployment rate -- or even by the 292,000 additional American workers who went on unemployment in August alone. He is insisting that if we keep E-Verify, then we have to add another 550,000 foreign workers next year to the 1.1 million immigrants already scheduled to come.
(AS A REMINDER: E-Verify is the central tool for taking away the job magnet from illegal immigration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to kill it so outlaw businesses will have more freedom to hire illegal workers. E-Verify is the on-line system that businesses can type into for each new hire and find out if they are an illegal alien.
(If you live in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia -- or any other of the places that have started mandating that businesses use E-Verify -- your efforts to combat illegal immigration will be halted. )
No comments:
Post a Comment