snathan
04-06 08:23 PM
right..ok..today at work I heard from my colleague that his friend was sent back from airport
My colleague's friend's story.
Went to india for 3 weeks vacation..at POE, officer called his employer and asked "do you need him(a H1B) to work for this position? Cant you find any US Citizen?".
Apparently, the response from employer ( I think Desi consulting)is, "Yes..we dont need him..can find a USC"..
The poor guy is sent back.
Now, I asked my friend to inform his colleague to come forward and post his story at IV..but I doubt if he cares Rat's as** now that he is kicked out.
hmmm...I have a travel coming up in Nov/Dec...with all adventurous luck going on with me, I have other plans now :confused::confused:
hmmm...strange. I heard the same story from my colleague. He said his brother was in airport and one guy who returned from India after vocation asked why he needs the H1B. The IO called his employer/client and asked if he can be replaced by USC/GC holder. The employer responded Yes...So he was sent back...
Is it just coincident or new kind of rumor...I was thinking it might be possible. Afte reading your post...its confirmed. Its rumor.
My colleague's friend's story.
Went to india for 3 weeks vacation..at POE, officer called his employer and asked "do you need him(a H1B) to work for this position? Cant you find any US Citizen?".
Apparently, the response from employer ( I think Desi consulting)is, "Yes..we dont need him..can find a USC"..
The poor guy is sent back.
Now, I asked my friend to inform his colleague to come forward and post his story at IV..but I doubt if he cares Rat's as** now that he is kicked out.
hmmm...I have a travel coming up in Nov/Dec...with all adventurous luck going on with me, I have other plans now :confused::confused:
hmmm...strange. I heard the same story from my colleague. He said his brother was in airport and one guy who returned from India after vocation asked why he needs the H1B. The IO called his employer/client and asked if he can be replaced by USC/GC holder. The employer responded Yes...So he was sent back...
Is it just coincident or new kind of rumor...I was thinking it might be possible. Afte reading your post...its confirmed. Its rumor.
wallpaper Black Eyed Peas beauty Fergie
ImmiLosers
11-22 07:41 PM
Document URL
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
PAGE 27
(1) Determining the Priority Date.
In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien�s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien�s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see the section on successor in interest).
PAGE 28
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions. For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification:)
It looks like law is not clear about revocation of I-140 or am I missing something
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
PAGE 27
(1) Determining the Priority Date.
In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien�s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien�s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see the section on successor in interest).
PAGE 28
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions. For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification:)
It looks like law is not clear about revocation of I-140 or am I missing something
desi3933
01-30 02:27 PM
Ok now I am confused. I was laid off while in India. Since I could not then use my H1 to reenter, I used the AP. So my I-94 is stamped as AOS. Are you saying this was not a lawful admission? Are you implying that from the time I entered the US on AP (Dec till date) is unlawful?
It is my fault. I should have explained it better.
The immigration laws are very confusion. Entry on AP is legal entry and it is ok, but it is not considered as lawful entry for I-485 approval process ONLY. For last lawful entry, USCIS looks for last entry on non-immigrant visa.
Hope that helps.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
It is my fault. I should have explained it better.
The immigration laws are very confusion. Entry on AP is legal entry and it is ok, but it is not considered as lawful entry for I-485 approval process ONLY. For last lawful entry, USCIS looks for last entry on non-immigrant visa.
Hope that helps.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
2011 #9: Black Eyed Peas
scorpion00
06-08 06:02 PM
so no spill over from EB2 ROW which is current ,to India and China EB2.
I guess many folks were having high hopes for this in the last quarter.
I guess many folks were having high hopes for this in the last quarter.
more...
no538
06-06 04:37 PM
Thanks for the info amitpan007.
That must have been a big surprise for you to see the Approval then?
I was under the impression that you'll start seeing continuous LUD's on your application before the approval.
Everyday I check my app and be disappointed that there is no LUD and wait for tomorrow.
That must have been a big surprise for you to see the Approval then?
I was under the impression that you'll start seeing continuous LUD's on your application before the approval.
Everyday I check my app and be disappointed that there is no LUD and wait for tomorrow.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
more...
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
2010 Bit)-The Black Eyed Peas
Dakota Newfie
07-03 06:22 AM
...that the system is severely backlogged and needs repair but to say it is unfair to limit the number of immigrants from one country does not make sense. Removing the per country limit would allow one or two countries to dominate the EB system because their high populations allow them to produce more skilled labor. So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed? Maybe a point-based system that incorporates a per country score would be better?
more...
moonrah
07-02 10:23 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
hair Black Eyed Peas - Just Can#39;t
makemygc
07-16 06:07 PM
This is utter nonsense!!!
Core team - > Please work on getting some sort of easy webfax put up so that we may effectively address such utter nonsense!! The link to the fax should be prominently displayed on the main page of IV!!!
Guys,
Lets come up with some suggestions to counter-attack these false propoganda. Few thoughts??
1. Will gandhigiri work with them? Not just sending flowers but using other Gandhi ways as well.
2. Should core post some article on the home page.."Top 10 Myths About Employment Based Immigration" and include tax as one of the myths.
Reason, i'm saying this is that in my company there are several americans who think that way even though they are ok with immigration. They think that we do not pay any tax here.
3. Educate numberusa and other anti-immigration people about. I know we might not be able to educate the core people over their but we might be able to educate other member joining there.
Any other thoughts?..
Core team - > Please work on getting some sort of easy webfax put up so that we may effectively address such utter nonsense!! The link to the fax should be prominently displayed on the main page of IV!!!
Guys,
Lets come up with some suggestions to counter-attack these false propoganda. Few thoughts??
1. Will gandhigiri work with them? Not just sending flowers but using other Gandhi ways as well.
2. Should core post some article on the home page.."Top 10 Myths About Employment Based Immigration" and include tax as one of the myths.
Reason, i'm saying this is that in my company there are several americans who think that way even though they are ok with immigration. They think that we do not pay any tax here.
3. Educate numberusa and other anti-immigration people about. I know we might not be able to educate the core people over their but we might be able to educate other member joining there.
Any other thoughts?..
more...
tikka
08-05 08:33 PM
Please join us for a tri state lunch meet. We would like to start working on volunteers/ mobilizing members for the DC rally. Even if you cannot take the day off and come to DC please come by for the lunch. We could really use help with banners/posters/ and ideas to make this a success.
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
TIME: 12:00pm
ALSO- PLEASE DO UPDATE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
Thank you!
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
TIME: 12:00pm
ALSO- PLEASE DO UPDATE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
Thank you!
hot Enough,” Black Eyed Peas
bigboy007
06-11 11:11 AM
See below what Anti Immigrants are doing. Each and everyone visits this site should sign what IV have given the link
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
Called up my friends, forwarded to dozens of my friends and asked them to forward.
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
Called up my friends, forwarded to dozens of my friends and asked them to forward.
more...
house ZAP2IT#39;S quot;BLACK EYED PEASquot; CD
meridiani.planum
03-03 06:13 PM
Consider this:
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visitors dramatically increase, if there are newsworthy events that affects most of the people.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not to be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information to the Media, and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
thats even worse. you are taking a poll of 500 people (*IF* you get that many respondents to this poll, my feeling is you wont cross 250) and expanding that to 1 million people in line for EB greencard.
This is not extrapolation, its a joke.
For the sake of the immigrant community, please dont drag CNN to Immigrationvoice.org to look at a poll that 200 people took of which 50 claim they would buy a house if they got a GC tomorrow. We all lose credibility if we make such statements.
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visitors dramatically increase, if there are newsworthy events that affects most of the people.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not to be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information to the Media, and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
thats even worse. you are taking a poll of 500 people (*IF* you get that many respondents to this poll, my feeling is you wont cross 250) and expanding that to 1 million people in line for EB greencard.
This is not extrapolation, its a joke.
For the sake of the immigrant community, please dont drag CNN to Immigrationvoice.org to look at a poll that 200 people took of which 50 claim they would buy a house if they got a GC tomorrow. We all lose credibility if we make such statements.
tattoo Black Eyed Peas Album Slide
vandanaverdia
09-11 06:09 PM
"The difference between the impossible and the possible lies in a person's determination."
Tommy Lasorda
Only YOU can convince yourself to do what is right for you right now. The time now is to march to DC!!!
Help IV help you....
GO IV!!!!
Tommy Lasorda
Only YOU can convince yourself to do what is right for you right now. The time now is to march to DC!!!
Help IV help you....
GO IV!!!!
more...
pictures Artist: The Black Eyed Peas
Refugee_New
07-28 01:09 PM
Good point!
As per our religion Parents are always Gods. And there is story of Lord Ganesha about when he was asked that who is your God? He said my parents.
This is where the problem starts chantu. For us in India, anything and everything is god. Indian movie actress's are our gods. We build temple to them. Amitabh is a god, Manisha is a god. These people take the gods avtars in our movies. But we all know how those people are. Most of them in that industry commit adultry.
Our Hindu party BJP uses these movie celebraties during election. We easily portray gods using those filthy people. So this is where problem starts. We have to clean our own backyard first.
As per our religion Parents are always Gods. And there is story of Lord Ganesha about when he was asked that who is your God? He said my parents.
This is where the problem starts chantu. For us in India, anything and everything is god. Indian movie actress's are our gods. We build temple to them. Amitabh is a god, Manisha is a god. These people take the gods avtars in our movies. But we all know how those people are. Most of them in that industry commit adultry.
Our Hindu party BJP uses these movie celebraties during election. We easily portray gods using those filthy people. So this is where problem starts. We have to clean our own backyard first.
dresses The Black Eyed Peas lastest
sanju
04-04 03:30 PM
Your argument may be true only some extent. If you keep on asking more H1b and GC without meaningful reform of H1b then it won't sell in the congress and they will try to keep staus quo and you have to wait years to get gc. How do you resolve the problem of Cap reached within few days? Will congress accept unlimited H1bs? What is the solution for this?
Your posts seem to suggest that because we (collectively all of us on the forum) have not yet agreed to a �meaningful reform� of H-1b,that has prevented fixes to the green card process? Is that what has truly delayed fixing the current green card backlog?
Secondly, we do not have to choose between the one and the other i.e. we do not have to choose between supporting Durbin-Grassley bill and delay with the green card. Do you think that supporting Durbin-Grassley bill that contains absolutely nothing to fix green card delays will somehow speed up the green card process?
We (all of us when calling lawmakers) HAVE to differentiate between increase/decrease in H-1b and green card delays. H-1b is not our issue and we will be better of staying as far away from that issue as possible. If we have to call, then we should call in to support a bill that has our provisions, rather than a bill that has nothing for us or maybe stuff that would hurt us.
Your posts seem to suggest that because we (collectively all of us on the forum) have not yet agreed to a �meaningful reform� of H-1b,that has prevented fixes to the green card process? Is that what has truly delayed fixing the current green card backlog?
Secondly, we do not have to choose between the one and the other i.e. we do not have to choose between supporting Durbin-Grassley bill and delay with the green card. Do you think that supporting Durbin-Grassley bill that contains absolutely nothing to fix green card delays will somehow speed up the green card process?
We (all of us when calling lawmakers) HAVE to differentiate between increase/decrease in H-1b and green card delays. H-1b is not our issue and we will be better of staying as far away from that issue as possible. If we have to call, then we should call in to support a bill that has our provisions, rather than a bill that has nothing for us or maybe stuff that would hurt us.
more...
makeup lack eyed peas,
paskal
03-16 02:01 PM
dont "warn" me..........you think i give a damn about your "warning"??
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
so i will try one last time.
your issues are whatever they are, i did not ask you to change your mind on them, neither did i choose to debate you on them. we all acknowledge that this is a bad system, and we all we can do is try fix it. of course like you we could simply vent, curse and blame everyone as well. not that will change a thing.
now the issue with your posts is your language and your tenor. kindly fix that.
yes i can ban you, i choose not to at this time. and yes take it as another warning. if you are contributing to iv action that is wonderful. language like this will however not be tolerated on this forum. please read the posting guidelines if you have doubts. i have posted the link and a snippet for your reference below. now chill out a bit and don't have a "coronary". we are all frustrated. what you are doing is not helping.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/announcement.php?f=90
"Posts that denigrate members, potential members or even anti-immigrant groups not welcome - such posts are against Immigration Voice principles. Immigration Voice reserves the right to take action against such posts and posters. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this Forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, disrespectful, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law."
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
so i will try one last time.
your issues are whatever they are, i did not ask you to change your mind on them, neither did i choose to debate you on them. we all acknowledge that this is a bad system, and we all we can do is try fix it. of course like you we could simply vent, curse and blame everyone as well. not that will change a thing.
now the issue with your posts is your language and your tenor. kindly fix that.
yes i can ban you, i choose not to at this time. and yes take it as another warning. if you are contributing to iv action that is wonderful. language like this will however not be tolerated on this forum. please read the posting guidelines if you have doubts. i have posted the link and a snippet for your reference below. now chill out a bit and don't have a "coronary". we are all frustrated. what you are doing is not helping.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/announcement.php?f=90
"Posts that denigrate members, potential members or even anti-immigrant groups not welcome - such posts are against Immigration Voice principles. Immigration Voice reserves the right to take action against such posts and posters. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this Forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, disrespectful, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law."
girlfriend The Black Eyed Peas - Just
aj1234567
07-18 06:08 PM
Hi Gurus,
My PD is Dec06 EB2, do you have any guess when I will be current.
Thanks
My PD is Dec06 EB2, do you have any guess when I will be current.
Thanks
hairstyles Black Eyed Peas - Boom Boom
nixstor
03-18 06:53 PM
Now for the rest of this year the EB2 queues for China and India are merged. Visa allocations will be solely based on Priority date. So for example if India has many priority dates that are before China's, India may end up getting more visa allocations. The same holds true if China has earlier priority dates than India does. That's how I inderstood it and I thought I would try to explain it to some who did not. Otherwise sorry for stating the obvious.
Read the Sec 202 a 5 I posted in 1st page and corresponding links. It clearly says that the left over visa numbers under each category in every Q can be assigned with out country limits. Is there any one who is reading it other wise (or) Is there any text in the bill I am possibly missing?
Read the Sec 202 a 5 I posted in 1st page and corresponding links. It clearly says that the left over visa numbers under each category in every Q can be assigned with out country limits. Is there any one who is reading it other wise (or) Is there any text in the bill I am possibly missing?
desi3933
03-17 07:21 AM
Did you just say "Just because people are not getting green cards does not mean wastage":D
That is exactly why we need to understand the process.
Have a look at visa numbers issued to EB category for the last 5 years and decide for yourself if visa numbers were wasted. I hope this helps with your "anxiety".
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
EB-All 246,877 159,081 162,176 166,511 141,020
EB1 64,731 36,960 26,697 36,678 40,978
EB2 42,597 21,911 44,162 70,046 46,034
EB3 129,070 89,922 85,030 48,903 39,791
EB4 10,133 9,539 5,481 9,524 9,999
EB5 346 749 806 1,360 4,218
_________________
Not a legal advice.
That is exactly why we need to understand the process.
Have a look at visa numbers issued to EB category for the last 5 years and decide for yourself if visa numbers were wasted. I hope this helps with your "anxiety".
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
EB-All 246,877 159,081 162,176 166,511 141,020
EB1 64,731 36,960 26,697 36,678 40,978
EB2 42,597 21,911 44,162 70,046 46,034
EB3 129,070 89,922 85,030 48,903 39,791
EB4 10,133 9,539 5,481 9,524 9,999
EB5 346 749 806 1,360 4,218
_________________
Not a legal advice.
piyu7444
01-31 04:57 AM
On H1 Status, one must be working full time and should be paid salary even if s/he is on benching. Three month maternity leave should be ok, but 6 months of unpaid leave will be very difficult to explain.
You should seriously consider changing status to H4, if that is an option.
In Nov, she can re-enter on H1 visa to come back to H1 status.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So does this mean that pending AOS has no meaning?
How about EAD.......if she switches to EAD in Feb with same employer and does not work from Mrach onward then?
My (mis)understanding was that as long as one has a pending AOS one can be in US without a job and paystub as long as one has a pending AOS.
Thanks for your help.
You should seriously consider changing status to H4, if that is an option.
In Nov, she can re-enter on H1 visa to come back to H1 status.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So does this mean that pending AOS has no meaning?
How about EAD.......if she switches to EAD in Feb with same employer and does not work from Mrach onward then?
My (mis)understanding was that as long as one has a pending AOS one can be in US without a job and paystub as long as one has a pending AOS.
Thanks for your help.