texcan
02-16 12:51 PM
Hi Everyone,
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
i somehow donot believe this guy....sounds fishy....
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
i somehow donot believe this guy....sounds fishy....
eilsoe
10-03 01:41 PM
Yes... someone should start a SPAM thread...
to let off some agressions that is...
ahh what the h*ll.. we answered his question in the beginning...
to let off some agressions that is...
ahh what the h*ll.. we answered his question in the beginning...
alapkd
09-01 01:49 AM
good but sad article, thanks for posting.
Jbpvisa
07-07 12:33 PM
I give highest rating.
more...
abhishek101
04-13 03:34 PM
One of my friends neighbours Aunt who lives in Australia has a cousin in South Africa
This cousin's sister's uncles' kids' friend got his GC last month, his PD was 2007. He was in EB3.
I have heard quite a few cases like that,
like other day I was at Safeway and the counter lady told me that her friend's cousin's son just got the whole process completed in 2 months and that too in EB3.
I can only say it is just unbelivable that these things still happen in this world. USCIS is just full of bums, we should definitely do some campaign about it.
But then ignorance is bliss :D
This cousin's sister's uncles' kids' friend got his GC last month, his PD was 2007. He was in EB3.
I have heard quite a few cases like that,
like other day I was at Safeway and the counter lady told me that her friend's cousin's son just got the whole process completed in 2 months and that too in EB3.
I can only say it is just unbelivable that these things still happen in this world. USCIS is just full of bums, we should definitely do some campaign about it.
But then ignorance is bliss :D
copsmart
06-15 02:52 PM
Given below are my case details.
Paper Based – Sent to Phoenix Lockbox, rerouted to CSC
Mailed Date : May 18th
Delivered Date : May 19th
Received Date : May 20th
Notice Date : June 1st
1st SLUD : June 2nd
2nd SLUD : June 9th
3rd SLUD : June 10th
4th SLUD : June 11th
No activity since last SLUD… My EAD expires in August. Has anyone noticed similar SLUD pattern on their case lately?
I would really appreciate if CSC/WAC applicants post their case status updates.
Thanks!!!
Paper Based – Sent to Phoenix Lockbox, rerouted to CSC
Mailed Date : May 18th
Delivered Date : May 19th
Received Date : May 20th
Notice Date : June 1st
1st SLUD : June 2nd
2nd SLUD : June 9th
3rd SLUD : June 10th
4th SLUD : June 11th
No activity since last SLUD… My EAD expires in August. Has anyone noticed similar SLUD pattern on their case lately?
I would really appreciate if CSC/WAC applicants post their case status updates.
Thanks!!!
more...
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7aj2Wue3ckgNtsFSMDI7Haa0Z2qIoabLzY_DgjO3nlQ3gJ_fOUjmnImZBxcXCgkXCJLwmSVgeJqNHeeiP53s7_MTBdmjd6IWkX22690BRXeXZcaBnmueY2l9B3gs8yN50QRw-ZmJmbj8/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7aj2Wue3ckgNtsFSMDI7Haa0Z2qIoabLzY_DgjO3nlQ3gJ_fOUjmnImZBxcXCgkXCJLwmSVgeJqNHeeiP53s7_MTBdmjd6IWkX22690BRXeXZcaBnmueY2l9B3gs8yN50QRw-ZmJmbj8/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7aj2Wue3ckgNtsFSMDI7Haa0Z2qIoabLzY_DgjO3nlQ3gJ_fOUjmnImZBxcXCgkXCJLwmSVgeJqNHeeiP53s7_MTBdmjd6IWkX22690BRXeXZcaBnmueY2l9B3gs8yN50QRw-ZmJmbj8/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7aj2Wue3ckgNtsFSMDI7Haa0Z2qIoabLzY_DgjO3nlQ3gJ_fOUjmnImZBxcXCgkXCJLwmSVgeJqNHeeiP53s7_MTBdmjd6IWkX22690BRXeXZcaBnmueY2l9B3gs8yN50QRw-ZmJmbj8/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
newyorker123
09-02 08:03 AM
lj_rr,
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
I wanted both Approval notice and Application(ETA-750), please tell me how to make this request?
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
I wanted both Approval notice and Application(ETA-750), please tell me how to make this request?
more...
Chicago Desi
03-31 11:16 AM
Im on my 8th year on H1. still stuck in Labor :(
My company is giving me a promotion and a raise in salary. Do i have to inform Labor about any of this ??!!
If after getting promotion your duties change dramatically, say from a programmer you get promoted to manager then you need a new H1. Otherwise, its only the gradual change then every thing is OK. For example, from progammer you are promoted to sr. developer :)
My company is giving me a promotion and a raise in salary. Do i have to inform Labor about any of this ??!!
If after getting promotion your duties change dramatically, say from a programmer you get promoted to manager then you need a new H1. Otherwise, its only the gradual change then every thing is OK. For example, from progammer you are promoted to sr. developer :)
nozerd
09-07 09:34 AM
Just to clarify I will not be working in US at all. I will only work in Canada and getting paid in Canada. I will only come to US for personal reasons (meeting fly etc) not work. Can I use the H1 stamp to enter under those circumstances.
more...
vamsi_poondla
11-10 01:59 PM
At your own risk unless you perform other 'important' stuff like coding, debugging and testing as part of your job functions apart from IT Project Management.
I would speak with my future employment HR and ask them enhance the designation to the one that matches what you specified in your labor.
I would speak with my future employment HR and ask them enhance the designation to the one that matches what you specified in your labor.
ivy55
07-17 09:26 PM
How did you open Expedite SR, I opened SR nearly five times, took two InfoPass, yet not FP ?
more...
telekinesis
10-20 10:40 PM
Oh shut up, you have a *beep* load of posts. :crazy:
javadeveloper
07-18 10:08 PM
found this one too
http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14653
http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14653
more...
msyedy
02-08 01:10 PM
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
The letter talks about VISA application registration. To file for I-485 you need a visa number available for you. The letter states that you currently have one and you should apply...meaning file (1-485 form which is Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) within one year from the date of the letter.
Registration itself means a visa number will be unvailable and you cannot use your old PD. You have only one year from the date of letter to use the visa number with that PD.
You should get your new labor approval within this one year limit and can file for I-485. I suggest that you should file perm because you never know when the BPC will approve that labor. Perm max will be approved in 6 months time(Most case)
In the end you trust your attorney. Talk to a good lawyer...
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
The letter talks about VISA application registration. To file for I-485 you need a visa number available for you. The letter states that you currently have one and you should apply...meaning file (1-485 form which is Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) within one year from the date of the letter.
Registration itself means a visa number will be unvailable and you cannot use your old PD. You have only one year from the date of letter to use the visa number with that PD.
You should get your new labor approval within this one year limit and can file for I-485. I suggest that you should file perm because you never know when the BPC will approve that labor. Perm max will be approved in 6 months time(Most case)
In the end you trust your attorney. Talk to a good lawyer...
hnordberg
June 12th, 2004, 12:35 PM
]']I only own a Tamron 28-200 XR at the moment :), mounted in my 300D :) . But maybe is possible to create big bubbles using bath gel... I should try :D .
You can get extension tubes and/or a front lens attachment for close-up work with your 28-200. Close-up is so much fun, so get some cheap stuff (e.g., Kenko extension tubes) and start shooting! Don't worry about the quality of the equipment when starting out. You take great pictures with simple and cheap equipment. And consider flashing your 300D with the Russian hack to get mirror lockup. I haven't done it yet, but I am thinking about it. Hmm, might make for an interesting poll in the 300D forum....
You can get extension tubes and/or a front lens attachment for close-up work with your 28-200. Close-up is so much fun, so get some cheap stuff (e.g., Kenko extension tubes) and start shooting! Don't worry about the quality of the equipment when starting out. You take great pictures with simple and cheap equipment. And consider flashing your 300D with the Russian hack to get mirror lockup. I haven't done it yet, but I am thinking about it. Hmm, might make for an interesting poll in the 300D forum....