53885
08-02 04:00 AM
Here is my prediction.
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Guys,
Discussing this topic all day will not get you any closer to getting GC.
Though this has been mentioned many times, I will say that the only thing in your hand right now is to take some ACTIONS.
Make sure Congress members hear your voice.
If you have not already check these threads out http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11428
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10747
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Guys,
Discussing this topic all day will not get you any closer to getting GC.
Though this has been mentioned many times, I will say that the only thing in your hand right now is to take some ACTIONS.
Make sure Congress members hear your voice.
If you have not already check these threads out http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11428
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10747
wallpaper Dwyane Wade
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
pointlesswait
07-30 09:08 AM
what i meant was...as individuals we can have views different from IV..;-)
as members of IV..we stick with the our IV goal.. thats all..no controversy there..;)
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
as members of IV..we stick with the our IV goal.. thats all..no controversy there..;)
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
2011 dwyane wade dunking on kevin
pani_6
08-24 03:42 PM
The situation seems pretty grim...there are about 80 k indian students
coming to the US every year in total about 250-350 k including all international students (I assume) and at least 50% of them want to work after graduation (I assume)..with the h1 cap at 65K(lot of them taken away by consultants) ...and the lots of school funding squeezed because of the war..Most students (I assume) study with no AID hoping to get a job to repay some of the loan/ father's money...
I think prospective students need to know the real situation out here..before
they make a choice of studying here.
I hope this grim situation is temporary...
coming to the US every year in total about 250-350 k including all international students (I assume) and at least 50% of them want to work after graduation (I assume)..with the h1 cap at 65K(lot of them taken away by consultants) ...and the lots of school funding squeezed because of the war..Most students (I assume) study with no AID hoping to get a job to repay some of the loan/ father's money...
I think prospective students need to know the real situation out here..before
they make a choice of studying here.
I hope this grim situation is temporary...
more...
ItIsNotFunny
06-11 12:45 PM
You idiot, this is your third post in last 10 minutes about your deleted post. Big deal! if your question was deleted, or, if you are not able to find your post???
It seems you want others to spoon feed you everything. Stop this bickering and stop complaining. Stop taking offense from nonsensical things, grow-up and look at the bigger picture.
Over reaction by "reno" without checking the thread shifting was not good. But under any circumstances we should avoid using wrong words. This creates a wrong impression and indirectly hurts the organization. We have some examples in past.
I appreciate Pappu's maturity to tackle the issue and his explanation.
It seems you want others to spoon feed you everything. Stop this bickering and stop complaining. Stop taking offense from nonsensical things, grow-up and look at the bigger picture.
Over reaction by "reno" without checking the thread shifting was not good. But under any circumstances we should avoid using wrong words. This creates a wrong impression and indirectly hurts the organization. We have some examples in past.
I appreciate Pappu's maturity to tackle the issue and his explanation.
gcseeker2002
12-15 03:27 PM
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
Read line 2 of this thread, OP says he is EB3-India , so why should he not send his wife to India ??
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
Read line 2 of this thread, OP says he is EB3-India , so why should he not send his wife to India ??
more...
gcformeornot
05-10 09:22 PM
Job Title has to be same. Detail description does not matter. So if you are say "Computer System Analyst", new job should have same title. Duties do not matter. Higher salary is OK. No problems there. I-140 if revoked by previous company does not harm.
Good Luck. I am also using AC21.
Good Luck. I am also using AC21.
2010 Dwyane Wade #9 of the U.S.
Mohit_Malkani
02-25 04:12 PM
Guys,
The I140 processing dates for VSC show as 1 April 2006 and have been the same atleast for the last 1 year. I called customer service but couldnt get a straight answer from them - the standard bs about RD being well within standard processing times etc. Anyway, does anyone have an idea about this issue???
:mad::mad:
The I140 processing dates for VSC show as 1 April 2006 and have been the same atleast for the last 1 year. I called customer service but couldnt get a straight answer from them - the standard bs about RD being well within standard processing times etc. Anyway, does anyone have an idea about this issue???
:mad::mad:
more...
aamchimumbai
09-12 12:06 AM
Folks,
I applied for my 485 last week and the apps. were received at the NSC on Sep 5. Typically, how long does it take for the USCIS to send a receipt notice? Rather when can I expect to see that my application was accepted for processing....
It'll be a week tomorrow. Can anyone shed some light from their past experience.
Thanks all.
I applied for my 485 last week and the apps. were received at the NSC on Sep 5. Typically, how long does it take for the USCIS to send a receipt notice? Rather when can I expect to see that my application was accepted for processing....
It'll be a week tomorrow. Can anyone shed some light from their past experience.
Thanks all.
hair Dwyane Wade of the US dunks
indianabacklog
11-09 09:20 AM
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
It is going to very much depend on your priority date and employment based category.
It is going to very much depend on your priority date and employment based category.
more...
ksita48
07-24 10:53 AM
BOLTI BUND (MAY BE IT IS AN EB3 ISSUE???).
Surprised to see NO comments from any corner (EB's, Admins Legals or even Illegals).
Also NO reply from the "thebestoptimizer@gmail.com" to my personal mail sent Yesterday.
Surprised to see NO comments from any corner (EB's, Admins Legals or even Illegals).
Also NO reply from the "thebestoptimizer@gmail.com" to my personal mail sent Yesterday.
hot Dwyane Wade Autographed
Pagal
04-21 07:21 PM
Hello,
Welcome to Houston! There are many options for living ... though traditionally Indians have preferred Sugarland, other neighborhoods (e.g. Pearland, Katy) are nice as well ... my recommendation would be to rent an apartment in Riveroaks area first (very nice neighborhood) while you look around ...
Welcome to Houston! There are many options for living ... though traditionally Indians have preferred Sugarland, other neighborhoods (e.g. Pearland, Katy) are nice as well ... my recommendation would be to rent an apartment in Riveroaks area first (very nice neighborhood) while you look around ...
more...
house Dwyane Wade Autographed NBA
gccovet
09-05 04:53 PM
I have GC for about a month now. I plan on taking up Corp-to-Corp, Independent, 1099 and W2 contracts. For corp-to-corp contracts I would like to incorporate a company if I can save on taxes over the 1099 contracts. I am also
in the process of engaging a CPA. Do you advise incorpating a LLC or S-Corp or a C-corp ?
Thanks,
theOne
LLC is the best way to go, just one drawback , per current market situation (financial situation), banks might be reluctant to provide a loan etc. but if you have a VC or capital, go for LLC. the best way to go.
Good luck.
GCCovet
in the process of engaging a CPA. Do you advise incorpating a LLC or S-Corp or a C-corp ?
Thanks,
theOne
LLC is the best way to go, just one drawback , per current market situation (financial situation), banks might be reluctant to provide a loan etc. but if you have a VC or capital, go for LLC. the best way to go.
Good luck.
GCCovet
tattoo tattoo dwyane wade dunking on
ramus
06-14 10:43 AM
Guys,
Don't create new thred for every single question you have.. You can find right thred and put it there..
Yes you can file for 485 even though your H1B extension is pending.
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
Don't create new thred for every single question you have.. You can find right thred and put it there..
Yes you can file for 485 even though your H1B extension is pending.
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
more...
pictures dwyane wade wallpaper dunk
dazed378
03-28 04:18 PM
As per my tax preparer's advice, I sent both the tax return and W-7 form to IRS ITIN Operation office in Austin, Texas. Is this the correct address?
dresses Dwayne Wade
immi_seeker
10-02 10:02 AM
just spoke with someone yesterday whose PD was april 2005. he files 485 in september 2005 before eb2 retrogressed.
he got his GC in august 2007. now how is that possible when i still see people wth PD of 2004, whose GC is pending. also btw, in august 2007 and in july 2007 the eb2 was U.
anyone can explain that please?
PD is important in asllocating visa numbers. An immigrant visa will be allocated only if pd is current. other background process like namecheck, fp etc shud happen irrespective of pd
he got his GC in august 2007. now how is that possible when i still see people wth PD of 2004, whose GC is pending. also btw, in august 2007 and in july 2007 the eb2 was U.
anyone can explain that please?
PD is important in asllocating visa numbers. An immigrant visa will be allocated only if pd is current. other background process like namecheck, fp etc shud happen irrespective of pd
more...
makeup Dwayne Wade now on Jordan
MahaBharatGC
10-13 11:45 AM
But ksircar, instead of accepting can't we raise red flags to USCIS?
This is going to be an issue for lot of folks who all filed for I-485 in the last year July fiasco. We will be forced renew every time. Only by giving 2 years is just a temporary postponement but not solving the real problem.
It is like Drivers Lincense renewal. If you have your documentation and you have been driving legally should be granted renewal instantly. Why can't they do the same thing with EAD?
This is going to be an issue for lot of folks who all filed for I-485 in the last year July fiasco. We will be forced renew every time. Only by giving 2 years is just a temporary postponement but not solving the real problem.
It is like Drivers Lincense renewal. If you have your documentation and you have been driving legally should be granted renewal instantly. Why can't they do the same thing with EAD?
girlfriend Video: Heat#39;s Dwyane Wade
snathan
08-06 08:33 PM
hi,
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
Your husband can remove from the GC process if he wants. And you will lose your EAD and you can not extend your EAD. One way is file for new H1B, get the job and start the GC process from PERM. There is no other way.
I came to US 5 years back in H4. My husband processed GC and 140 is cleared and 485 pending. I got my EAD and now working. My husband and I have problems and he is threatening to ruin my life.
Can I know a few things
1. Can he take me out of the GC ?
2. Can he revoke my EAD ?
3. Can my employee extend my EAD which is expiring in 2010 and continue my GC.
please help...
Your husband can remove from the GC process if he wants. And you will lose your EAD and you can not extend your EAD. One way is file for new H1B, get the job and start the GC process from PERM. There is no other way.
hairstyles Dwyane Wade Dunk Images: Would
luckylavs
05-15 12:30 PM
Gurus: Any idea if there will be visa movement for IN in the near future...
Roger Binny
07-25 04:42 PM
No idea what to say, yes they have all rights but doesn't this never ends?
Or Are these cases rare ?
Some one entered into US legally in 2001, slogged(ing) 8 or more years for GC...so 2009..then 5 more years for citizen ship so 2014....with this news it looks like they need to keep up the paper work and employer contacts for 12 years, as well the family need to realize that their stay in US is temporary ???
Oh my god too much of reality.
Or Are these cases rare ?
Some one entered into US legally in 2001, slogged(ing) 8 or more years for GC...so 2009..then 5 more years for citizen ship so 2014....with this news it looks like they need to keep up the paper work and employer contacts for 12 years, as well the family need to realize that their stay in US is temporary ???
Oh my god too much of reality.
ragz4u
03-15 11:05 AM
Ramanujam,
Over the last couple of weeks IV core committee members and QGA have had several meetings with important members of Senate and House. We have tried to educate the relevant folks about our situation.
It is premature to assume/speculate one way or other whether any pro-immigrant provisions will be removed/added. The next few days will provide a good idea of how things might unfold
There are a ton of amendments that are being introduced by various Judiciary Committee members. The committee has only reached Title 3 while Title 4 and 5 are the ones that most affect us
In the same vein, the Judiciary Committee is NOT the only place an amendment can be brought into the bill.
After the Judiciary committee, the bill will be brought to the floor. At that time too amendments can be brought in by Senators. Once the bill passes the senate, the bill will be discussed by the Joint Conference Committee that will negotiate and come to a common bill from both the House Version HR4437 and the senate version of it. Here too, pro-immigrant provisions can be added/removed
So in short, we will try our best to ensure that all our goals mentioned on the home page are achieved (hopefully :) ) and we will keep on working on it until the final bill gets passed by both the house and senate after the joint conference committee!
Over the last couple of weeks IV core committee members and QGA have had several meetings with important members of Senate and House. We have tried to educate the relevant folks about our situation.
It is premature to assume/speculate one way or other whether any pro-immigrant provisions will be removed/added. The next few days will provide a good idea of how things might unfold
There are a ton of amendments that are being introduced by various Judiciary Committee members. The committee has only reached Title 3 while Title 4 and 5 are the ones that most affect us
In the same vein, the Judiciary Committee is NOT the only place an amendment can be brought into the bill.
After the Judiciary committee, the bill will be brought to the floor. At that time too amendments can be brought in by Senators. Once the bill passes the senate, the bill will be discussed by the Joint Conference Committee that will negotiate and come to a common bill from both the House Version HR4437 and the senate version of it. Here too, pro-immigrant provisions can be added/removed
So in short, we will try our best to ensure that all our goals mentioned on the home page are achieved (hopefully :) ) and we will keep on working on it until the final bill gets passed by both the house and senate after the joint conference committee!
No comments:
Post a Comment