jsb
09-10 10:07 AM
I don't know what this means. This is what it say in the Mumbai website.
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 22 July 2003 22 July 2003
FX 1 March 2003 1 March 2003
F2A 1 June 2005 1 June 2005
F2B 22 August 2001 22 August 2001
F3 15 Janurary 2001 15 Janurary 2001
F4 15 April 1999 15 April 1999
E1 Current Current
E2 22 January 2005 Current
E3 22 February 2002 1 June 2002
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
For E3 India, Mumbai guys copied from the China column of the original Visa Bulletin. I guess they will have to correct it.
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 22 July 2003 22 July 2003
FX 1 March 2003 1 March 2003
F2A 1 June 2005 1 June 2005
F2B 22 August 2001 22 August 2001
F3 15 Janurary 2001 15 Janurary 2001
F4 15 April 1999 15 April 1999
E1 Current Current
E2 22 January 2005 Current
E3 22 February 2002 1 June 2002
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
For E3 India, Mumbai guys copied from the China column of the original Visa Bulletin. I guess they will have to correct it.
wallpaper up is quot;Megan Fox thumbsquot;.
simple1
05-01 11:45 AM
number30,
Please don�t take it out of context. This is not an argument.
While, I agree with you **we need to work for** a future better solution of not counting EB dependents in any quota.
My question is more of what the **law currently says**?.
According to INA EB dependents must be counted under family quota.
Please don�t take it out of context. This is not an argument.
While, I agree with you **we need to work for** a future better solution of not counting EB dependents in any quota.
My question is more of what the **law currently says**?.
According to INA EB dependents must be counted under family quota.
english_august
07-09 09:56 AM
I have read in a few places that we plan to send flowers on 11, and 12th also?
If that is the case then the document has to be updated to include those dates. Also, I suggest collecting emails and fax numbers and assigning a few people to do the actual "sending". This will make it easier to coordinate.
11th and 12th were added later because by Saturday evening when the core team decided to support this campaign, we weren't entirely sure if delivery on the 10th was still possible.
However, majority of flowers are going to be delivered on the 10th so I wanted to keep the focus on that single date.
If you want to go ahead with co-ordinating the actual sending then please go ahead - I think it will be very helpful.
If that is the case then the document has to be updated to include those dates. Also, I suggest collecting emails and fax numbers and assigning a few people to do the actual "sending". This will make it easier to coordinate.
11th and 12th were added later because by Saturday evening when the core team decided to support this campaign, we weren't entirely sure if delivery on the 10th was still possible.
However, majority of flowers are going to be delivered on the 10th so I wanted to keep the focus on that single date.
If you want to go ahead with co-ordinating the actual sending then please go ahead - I think it will be very helpful.
2011 megan fox thumbs tmz. up
gccovet
07-28 02:47 PM
Just got email. No card yet.
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On July 26, 2008, we ordered production of your new card
update:
Another thing I just noticed is a LUD on my I-140 which was approved a year ago ( july5th 2007)
The lud happened on 7/27/2008.
Recieved an email just now. Status was updated to card production ordered.
Paper filed at TSC on May 22, 2008
Service center: TSC
Last LUD on July 25 (Previous update was on May 25)
Current status: Card production ordered.
Waiting till I get the card .........
Cool, at least some movement. I hope, mine moves too!!
GCCovet
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On July 26, 2008, we ordered production of your new card
update:
Another thing I just noticed is a LUD on my I-140 which was approved a year ago ( july5th 2007)
The lud happened on 7/27/2008.
Recieved an email just now. Status was updated to card production ordered.
Paper filed at TSC on May 22, 2008
Service center: TSC
Last LUD on July 25 (Previous update was on May 25)
Current status: Card production ordered.
Waiting till I get the card .........
Cool, at least some movement. I hope, mine moves too!!
GCCovet
more...
jchan
08-25 01:08 PM
I searched immigrationportal.com and only found few than three cases in the last three months about H1B denial. The number does not seem to be unusually high to me.
simple1
05-01 02:49 PM
Adding dependents/derivative is based on primary�s PD and app status.
Challenge me with a scenario that will have an issue. If someone doesn�t have H4 they will be affected anyways. They will not have additional impact due to this.
Please read INA, I485 application and current VB.
I personally believe none will be affected and left too behind (yes, they will be delayed a bit, they will have AP/EAD to hold on to).
But add the Dependents to that. Now at least you wife is coming with you. Just think if there was no H4 visa.
Challenge me with a scenario that will have an issue. If someone doesn�t have H4 they will be affected anyways. They will not have additional impact due to this.
Please read INA, I485 application and current VB.
I personally believe none will be affected and left too behind (yes, they will be delayed a bit, they will have AP/EAD to hold on to).
But add the Dependents to that. Now at least you wife is coming with you. Just think if there was no H4 visa.
more...
bharol
08-21 03:23 PM
Last night got a message welcome notice sent.
Today message changed to ( the dates shows yesterday)
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On August 7, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
How long did it take for you to get the physical cards after 'card production..' mail?
Today message changed to ( the dates shows yesterday)
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On August 7, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
How long did it take for you to get the physical cards after 'card production..' mail?
2010 NOT have Megan Fox thumbs.
zoooom
07-19 06:48 PM
Although the thread title says "Reimburse the core team" and I know that the core team will not take any money (and do not expect the memebrs to reimburse them) from the fund that we are planning on creating here...Stilll by contributing to this fund we can make sure that core does not have to bear any out of pocket personal expense in future while working on "our" goal.
Lets see how many of us are actually inetested in contributing. Once we have the number we can set a realistic goal and divide amongst ourselves.
For that I suggest we give this thread good two days to develop and check other members responses...
So here is a chance for everyone to contribute to our own goal. Lets keep this going. Who ever is interested pls reply. I will do a final count after 2 days as suggested and take it from there....
Guys: Its good to see response...Pls reply with the text "In" and the amount.
Members,
I am sure most of us have already gone through this article but those who have not pls do so. This elablarately tells about the sacrifices our core team(especially Aman) had to make inorder to be where we are today...I am sure this will encourage you....
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...eek+exclusives
========================
Message from Pappu:
Aman has made more financial sacrifices and time sacrifices than anyone else. Not a single penny has been reimbursed to him for his trips to DC, food and stay in DC or car rental in DC. He even risked his job and went to DC on unpaid leave at critical times because lobbying was important for getting our work done. We in the core team know this and when we see the kind of contributions we get from members, we feel disappointed that our efforts are not valued. When we started the $20 contributions people felt $20 was too high and wanted $10 per month or less. The kind of work and effort that is needed to push a single provision is phenomenal and needs lot of capital. The more the better. Sometimes reading posts that say IV core is selfish also disappoints us. People do not know the effort that goes in getting anything done. This website is simply a tool for us to communicate to everyone. The big effort is the lobbying work. We hope the Buisnessweek article helps people realize our hard work and people value it by contributing to it and helping us in all action items.
"Members please pledge the amount. Do NOT pay right now. Since these funds are to be directed towards reimbursing the administrative costs of the core team , we are not going to be adding it to the IV funds. We are working on a strategy to get this amount across to the IV core team members. We will instruct you on how to make the payment, once we formulate a strategy"
Lets see how many of us are actually inetested in contributing. Once we have the number we can set a realistic goal and divide amongst ourselves.
For that I suggest we give this thread good two days to develop and check other members responses...
So here is a chance for everyone to contribute to our own goal. Lets keep this going. Who ever is interested pls reply. I will do a final count after 2 days as suggested and take it from there....
Guys: Its good to see response...Pls reply with the text "In" and the amount.
Members,
I am sure most of us have already gone through this article but those who have not pls do so. This elablarately tells about the sacrifices our core team(especially Aman) had to make inorder to be where we are today...I am sure this will encourage you....
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...eek+exclusives
========================
Message from Pappu:
Aman has made more financial sacrifices and time sacrifices than anyone else. Not a single penny has been reimbursed to him for his trips to DC, food and stay in DC or car rental in DC. He even risked his job and went to DC on unpaid leave at critical times because lobbying was important for getting our work done. We in the core team know this and when we see the kind of contributions we get from members, we feel disappointed that our efforts are not valued. When we started the $20 contributions people felt $20 was too high and wanted $10 per month or less. The kind of work and effort that is needed to push a single provision is phenomenal and needs lot of capital. The more the better. Sometimes reading posts that say IV core is selfish also disappoints us. People do not know the effort that goes in getting anything done. This website is simply a tool for us to communicate to everyone. The big effort is the lobbying work. We hope the Buisnessweek article helps people realize our hard work and people value it by contributing to it and helping us in all action items.
"Members please pledge the amount. Do NOT pay right now. Since these funds are to be directed towards reimbursing the administrative costs of the core team , we are not going to be adding it to the IV funds. We are working on a strategy to get this amount across to the IV core team members. We will instruct you on how to make the payment, once we formulate a strategy"
more...
good idea
09-24 09:58 AM
I am not sure if I am correct,
Although no. of visas are awarded "EB category + country" wise, but spillover is not awarded in same fashion.
.e.g. 3000 visa comes to EB2 I & 3000 visa comes to EB3 I.
But spillover comes from EB1 to EB2 irrespective of country. And reason why EB2 I is far ahead is because of spillover gain before it reaches to EB3.
Even if some EB2 I guys are not happy with EB3 person porting to EB2, shouldn't they calm down as whoever is porting taking benefit from spillover for EB2 world and not from spillover EB2 I.
My assumption is spillover comes to "EB2" and not "EB2 + country" wise, if that is not correct then my point is nullified.
Although no. of visas are awarded "EB category + country" wise, but spillover is not awarded in same fashion.
.e.g. 3000 visa comes to EB2 I & 3000 visa comes to EB3 I.
But spillover comes from EB1 to EB2 irrespective of country. And reason why EB2 I is far ahead is because of spillover gain before it reaches to EB3.
Even if some EB2 I guys are not happy with EB3 person porting to EB2, shouldn't they calm down as whoever is porting taking benefit from spillover for EB2 world and not from spillover EB2 I.
My assumption is spillover comes to "EB2" and not "EB2 + country" wise, if that is not correct then my point is nullified.
hair Megan Fox Vs. The Silver Fox
man-woman-and-gc
09-15 11:43 AM
Hi GCSTATUS...can u please update your first post in this thread..the new people looking into this thread may not be able to go thru all the posts and will not know what's going on......
more...
english_august
07-10 09:57 AM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
This is our official response to this
http://www.touchdownusa.org/pdf/Response.pdf
This is our official response to this
http://www.touchdownusa.org/pdf/Response.pdf
hot hair More Megan Fox news here
prashanthg
11-18 09:36 AM
Done.
more...
house Vote [ Thumbs Up · Thumbs Down
Suva
08-13 02:44 PM
What is LUD?
tattoo fox thumbs up. megan fox
PDOCT05
10-02 02:49 PM
I am just trying to make list of people stuck on July 3rd at 9:03 received by R.William. Appears that our box is lost.
Here is the information I got of people(July 3rd) still waiting
If there are more plz...added it to list
-----list-------
lutherpraveen
PDOCT05
i99
helpme1234
kingnaga
waitforgc123
Rohan99
Here is more added to the list
lutherpraveen
PDOCT05
i99
helpme1234
kingnaga
waitforgc123
Rohan99
gclongwaytogo
cool_cat
sivanu
GKBest
Here is the information I got of people(July 3rd) still waiting
If there are more plz...added it to list
-----list-------
lutherpraveen
PDOCT05
i99
helpme1234
kingnaga
waitforgc123
Rohan99
Here is more added to the list
lutherpraveen
PDOCT05
i99
helpme1234
kingnaga
waitforgc123
Rohan99
gclongwaytogo
cool_cat
sivanu
GKBest
more...
pictures Megan Fox#39;s thumbs |
psaxena
02-25 03:42 PM
Business Name:
Immigration Voice
Email:
donations@immigrationvoice.org
Business Contact Information
Customer Service URL: http://www.immigrationvoice.org
Customer Service Email: donations@immigrationvoice.org
Customer Service Phone: 850-391-4966
Amount sent:
-$20.00 USD
Fee:
$0.00 USD
Total:
-$20.00 USD
Date:
Feb. 25, 2009
Time:
12:26:48 PST
Status:
Completed
Subject:
You've got a payment from psaxena
Note:
Keep up the great effort. Donated 20$ and will keep donating more.
My all hopes are with you guys.
Shipping Address:
No Address Provided
Funding Type:
PayPal Funds
Funding Source:
$20.00 USD - PayPal Account
Immigration Voice
Email:
donations@immigrationvoice.org
Business Contact Information
Customer Service URL: http://www.immigrationvoice.org
Customer Service Email: donations@immigrationvoice.org
Customer Service Phone: 850-391-4966
Amount sent:
-$20.00 USD
Fee:
$0.00 USD
Total:
-$20.00 USD
Date:
Feb. 25, 2009
Time:
12:26:48 PST
Status:
Completed
Subject:
You've got a payment from psaxena
Note:
Keep up the great effort. Donated 20$ and will keep donating more.
My all hopes are with you guys.
Shipping Address:
No Address Provided
Funding Type:
PayPal Funds
Funding Source:
$20.00 USD - PayPal Account
dresses 2011 makeup megan fox thumbs
delax
07-27 12:33 AM
That is your take ....or they could end up distributing the spill over Visas equally among all EB categories because the original quota is equally distributed too. This benefits both EB3 and EB2.
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
more...
makeup pictures megan fox thumbs up.
rk07
09-28 11:34 AM
Did you noticed any LUD before check cashing as you got receipt from california. I filed on July 20 and no news yet.
Not sure of LUD. Today I checked online account and I saw checks got cashed and receipt #'s starting with WAC at the back of the check.
Waiting for the scanned copies of receipts from Attorney.
Thanks,
-rk.
Not sure of LUD. Today I checked online account and I saw checks got cashed and receipt #'s starting with WAC at the back of the check.
Waiting for the scanned copies of receipts from Attorney.
Thanks,
-rk.
girlfriend is abuzz Megan+fox+thumbs
prashanthg
09-17 03:51 PM
Its unfortunate you are confused. Still appreciate you took sometime even with this confused state of mind to give your valuable 2 cents.
First of all, its not between me and employer for that matter. USCIS is delaying the process with no logical reason ( am i repeating myself from my first post - hopefully you read again and properly this time Mr.confused ).
All we want is to have them follow a pattern. Wait what am i doing here, you are confused, doesnt matter what i write here. Let me know when you are normal ( after all the hormones are in order, if at all that happens ), we can talk.
Man!
You either get too emotional, or too defensive.
I still don't get what you want to achieve.
We all agree that you are not after the money.
You want them to approve the cases this September, before the retrogression hits in Oct.
They can�t give the GC�s if this year�s quota is already over. Even a judge can�t force them � it is the law � they cannot give any more than the number defined in the law.
On USCIS processes:
USCIS already confessed before the congress that they can�t (unable to) process the applications in the priority date order.
If you force them, they will say the same thing in front of a judge. If the judge forces them to process the cases by PD, they will say it will take them couple of years to make changes to their processes/procedures. In the mean time they will waste visa numbers.
(We are still smarting from the BEC fiasco � at least I am � They took two years just to move the boxes from SWEs).
They have been saying that they are hiring, training and improving blah, blah blah (we have heard all that BS before). And they are going to repeat the same thing again in a court.
So, How do you want to see the USCIS perform and how this law suit is going to help.
Convince me. I will gladly contribute, even though, I have not filed my 485 yet.
First of all, its not between me and employer for that matter. USCIS is delaying the process with no logical reason ( am i repeating myself from my first post - hopefully you read again and properly this time Mr.confused ).
All we want is to have them follow a pattern. Wait what am i doing here, you are confused, doesnt matter what i write here. Let me know when you are normal ( after all the hormones are in order, if at all that happens ), we can talk.
Man!
You either get too emotional, or too defensive.
I still don't get what you want to achieve.
We all agree that you are not after the money.
You want them to approve the cases this September, before the retrogression hits in Oct.
They can�t give the GC�s if this year�s quota is already over. Even a judge can�t force them � it is the law � they cannot give any more than the number defined in the law.
On USCIS processes:
USCIS already confessed before the congress that they can�t (unable to) process the applications in the priority date order.
If you force them, they will say the same thing in front of a judge. If the judge forces them to process the cases by PD, they will say it will take them couple of years to make changes to their processes/procedures. In the mean time they will waste visa numbers.
(We are still smarting from the BEC fiasco � at least I am � They took two years just to move the boxes from SWEs).
They have been saying that they are hiring, training and improving blah, blah blah (we have heard all that BS before). And they are going to repeat the same thing again in a court.
So, How do you want to see the USCIS perform and how this law suit is going to help.
Convince me. I will gladly contribute, even though, I have not filed my 485 yet.
hairstyles wallpaper megan fox thumbs
sankap
07-09 11:58 PM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (which could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. In fact, many staffing companies give you the option of working on a project or 1099 or W2. (Of course, the advantage of working on W2 is you can "transfer" your H-1B, if the company is willing to do that. But the advantage of working on 1099 or LLC is that you can deduct your business expenses, as a "Self-employed" or a Corporation.) Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. True, your I-140 petition is for a "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has (supposedly) an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen many "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Likewise, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
7. On the link you cite, OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, the process for filing PERM is explained. The employer needs to fill out the Application for Permanent Employment Certification form. The PERM representation requirement does indeed say that "The job opportunity is for full-time, permanent employment for an employer other than the alien." First, how to judge a job as "permanent?" Second, just because the PERM has the requirement for a FT, "permanent" job, it doesn't imply that the "permanent" requirement would apply to the AC21 law.
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
7. Since you're *not* required to inform USCIS on your job changes, why "file AC21" (and stir things), or advise people to do so?
Sankap -
Please allow me to explain this in detail. Please feel free to verify this information with attorney of your choice.
1. W2 Self Employed simply means that one has controlling equity in the employer company. For example - I am employed by corp that is, in part, owned by me since I hold a % of shares. I get paid on W2, just like any other employee in the corp.
2. Any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations. They do not replace them. In any case, memo does not have force of law. In case of contradictory info, memo must "bow" to federal regulations and court rulings.
3. I-140 is for permanent and full time job only. See Page 5 of
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-140instr.pdf
4. Also, read this. It says 'Permanent Employment'
OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm#effdate1)
5. AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time.
6. Permanent Job does not mean "forever", It simply means that duration of employment is not known. A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job (since duration is known), hence all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers. A permanent can be terminated at any time, at will, or as agreed notice by both parties.
7. One is not required to notify AC-21 job, but should e ready to respond to EVL RFE that can come any time.
8. Most of the full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (which could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. In fact, many staffing companies give you the option of working on a project or 1099 or W2. (Of course, the advantage of working on W2 is you can "transfer" your H-1B, if the company is willing to do that. But the advantage of working on 1099 or LLC is that you can deduct your business expenses, as a "Self-employed" or a Corporation.) Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. True, your I-140 petition is for a "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has (supposedly) an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen many "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Likewise, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
7. On the link you cite, OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, the process for filing PERM is explained. The employer needs to fill out the Application for Permanent Employment Certification form. The PERM representation requirement does indeed say that "The job opportunity is for full-time, permanent employment for an employer other than the alien." First, how to judge a job as "permanent?" Second, just because the PERM has the requirement for a FT, "permanent" job, it doesn't imply that the "permanent" requirement would apply to the AC21 law.
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
7. Since you're *not* required to inform USCIS on your job changes, why "file AC21" (and stir things), or advise people to do so?
Sankap -
Please allow me to explain this in detail. Please feel free to verify this information with attorney of your choice.
1. W2 Self Employed simply means that one has controlling equity in the employer company. For example - I am employed by corp that is, in part, owned by me since I hold a % of shares. I get paid on W2, just like any other employee in the corp.
2. Any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations. They do not replace them. In any case, memo does not have force of law. In case of contradictory info, memo must "bow" to federal regulations and court rulings.
3. I-140 is for permanent and full time job only. See Page 5 of
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-140instr.pdf
4. Also, read this. It says 'Permanent Employment'
OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm#effdate1)
5. AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time.
6. Permanent Job does not mean "forever", It simply means that duration of employment is not known. A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job (since duration is known), hence all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers. A permanent can be terminated at any time, at will, or as agreed notice by both parties.
7. One is not required to notify AC-21 job, but should e ready to respond to EVL RFE that can come any time.
8. Most of the full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
n_2006
06-27 10:29 AM
If you are consulting and not getting bench period salary, try to be out of project for some time and ask him to pay for that period. According to H1B he supposed to pay the salary. Probably at that point he has to let you go.
Here you go - These are the wordings !
$$$$
1. Employee had agreed to pay $ 10,000 if Employee resigns within first year of receiving the green card (hereinafter �Commitment Period�). After payment of the salary for the working days till the commitment period subject to all applicable payroll taxes and deductions, completes the transaction and Employee agrees that he has no other claims against the company.
$$$$$
Also there are more sensitive clauses like >>>>
8. EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS AGREEMENT CREATES A PERMANENT BAR AGAINST THE FILING OF ANY LAWSUIT OR THE ASSERTION OF ANY LEGAL CLAIM WHATSOEVER AGAINST ANY RELEASEE WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTS, OMISSIONS, OBLIGATIONS, BREACHES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OR OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION HEREOF, WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN BY EMPLOYEE.
BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, EMPLOYEE STATES THAT HE:
a) HAS READ IT AND HAS HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSIDER ITS TERMS;
b) UNDERSTANDS IT AND KNOWS THAT HE IS GIVING UP IMPORTANT RIGHTS;
c) AGREES WITH EVERYTHING IN IT;
d) HAS CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING IT; AND
3
e) HAS SIGNED IT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.
FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT BY EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE MAY REVOKE THIS AGREEMENT; AND THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCEABLE UNTIL THE REVOCATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this Agreement.
Here you go - These are the wordings !
$$$$
1. Employee had agreed to pay $ 10,000 if Employee resigns within first year of receiving the green card (hereinafter �Commitment Period�). After payment of the salary for the working days till the commitment period subject to all applicable payroll taxes and deductions, completes the transaction and Employee agrees that he has no other claims against the company.
$$$$$
Also there are more sensitive clauses like >>>>
8. EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS AGREEMENT CREATES A PERMANENT BAR AGAINST THE FILING OF ANY LAWSUIT OR THE ASSERTION OF ANY LEGAL CLAIM WHATSOEVER AGAINST ANY RELEASEE WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTS, OMISSIONS, OBLIGATIONS, BREACHES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OR OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION HEREOF, WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN BY EMPLOYEE.
BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, EMPLOYEE STATES THAT HE:
a) HAS READ IT AND HAS HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSIDER ITS TERMS;
b) UNDERSTANDS IT AND KNOWS THAT HE IS GIVING UP IMPORTANT RIGHTS;
c) AGREES WITH EVERYTHING IN IT;
d) HAS CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING IT; AND
3
e) HAS SIGNED IT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.
FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT BY EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE MAY REVOKE THIS AGREEMENT; AND THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCEABLE UNTIL THE REVOCATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this Agreement.
coolstonesa
06-22 03:31 PM
Generally speaking two recent pay stubs are sufficient to verify that you remain with the same employer. It is possible that if your petition is pending for more than 10 or 12 months, either a job offer letter or additional pay stubs will be requested.
So you were not referring to Employment Letter for GC job, rather Current Employment Letter while discussing how to file I-485.
GREAT!!! I hope you are not filing your I-485 application yourself.
What is the Current Employment Letter has to do with I-485?
Good Luck.
So you were not referring to Employment Letter for GC job, rather Current Employment Letter while discussing how to file I-485.
GREAT!!! I hope you are not filing your I-485 application yourself.
What is the Current Employment Letter has to do with I-485?
Good Luck.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar