jags_e
08-30 02:58 PM
There is a main article on the reverse brain drain in EE Times and it mentions the IV's September 18 rally too.
The link is http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=314X3PTACJUWMQSNDLOSK HSCJUNN2JVN;?articleID=201802703
EE Times: Latest News
Green-card red tape sends valuable engineers packing
Disenchanted with life in immigration limbo, San Antonio resident Praveen Arumbakkam is abandoning his American dream and returning to his native India.
A senior programmer at a fast-growing IT company, Arumbakkam volunteered for the Red Cross in Texas after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. He worked on disaster recovery management software to locate displaced persons, track donations and organize aid distribution.
He had hoped to start a nonprofit disaster recovery management solutions company in the United States, but now he's decided he doesn't want to wait any longer for his green card.
When professionals such as Arumbakkam give up on the States, it creates serious economic consequences, said Vivek Wadhwa, lead author of a study on the subject released last week.
"We've set the stage here for a massive reverse brain drain," said Wadhwa, Wertheim Fellow at Harvard Law School's Labor and Worklife Program.
By the end of fiscal 2006, half a million foreign nationals living in the U.S. were waiting for employment-based green cards, according to the study, released by the nonprofit Kauffman Foundation. Titled "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain," the study was based on research by Duke, Harvard and New York University. If spouses and children are included, the number exceeds 1 million.
The study looked at the three main types of employment-based green cards, which cover skill-based immigrants and their immediate families. Including pros- pective immigrants awaiting U.S. legal permanent resident status but living abroad, the numbers hit almost 600,000 in the first group and almost 1.2 million in the second.
The number of available green cards in the three categories totals approximately 120,000. "If there are over a million persons in line for 120,000 visas a year, then we have already mortgaged almost nine years' worth of employment visas," said study author Guillermina Jasso, an NYU sociology professor.
The report also notes that foreign nationals were listed as inventors or co-inventors on 25.6 percent of the international-patent app-lications filed from the United States in 2006, up from 7.6 percent in 1998.
U.S. companies bring in many highly skilled foreigners on temporary visas and train them in U.S. business practices, noted Wadhwa, an executive in residence at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering. Those workers are then forced to leave, and "they become our competitors. That's as stupid as it gets," he said. "How can this country be so dumb as to bring people in on temporary visas, train them in our way of doing business and then send them back to compete with us?"
Many in the engineering profession argue that American tech employers take advantage of the work visa system for their own benefit. They state that though there is plenty of American engineering talent available, employers use the programs to hire cheaper foreign labor.
And others counter the concern that large numbers of foreign residents will depart America. Most immigrants who have waited years for green cards will remain firm in their resolve, given the time and effort they have already invested, believes Norm Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California at Davis. "People are here because they want to be here," he said. "They place a high value on immigrating."
But while Arumbakkam wants to be here, he has had enough of waiting. And his story is typical of those foreign-born tech professionals who return home.
In July 2001, the then 27-year-old Arumbakkam arrived on a student visa to get his master's in information technology at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York. He has a bachelor's degree from the highly ranked University of Madras in southern India.
Arumbakkam said he "pretty much loved the society and the infrastructure for advanced education" in the States. In the post-Sept. 11 climate toward foreigners, however, he found it difficult to get work. After sending out countless resumes, he took an internship in Baltimore, followed by a job in Michigan.
That post didn't bring him any closer to his goal of permanent residency, however. He next took a job in San Antonio and insisted his employer secure him a green card. About that time, the government established an "application backlog elimination" center. "My application went straight into this chasm. I don't know what happened after that," he said. "That was pretty much a blow."
In 2005, he landed his current job, where he's happy with the work environment and the salary. His employer applied for a green card when the government rolled out an online system that was supposed to streamline the process.
But since then, with two applications in the works, Arumbakkam has been waiting-and waiting. In the meantime, his work status can't change, meaning no pay raises or promotions.
Page 2 of 2
Arumbakkam knows plenty of others in the same boat. In early 2006, he ran across Immigration Voice, a nonprofit national group that supports changes in immigration law affecting highly skilled workers. The 22,000-member organization includes professionals in a wide range of fields, from engineers and doctors to architects. Many have families, and all are stuck in the legal process.
"I heard horror stories," said Arumbakkam. One is the tale of a quality assurance engineer employed by a midsized consulting firm in Oklahoma working with Fortune 50 companies. The Indian engineer was hired at a salary that was 30 percent lower than he expected. This was in exchange for the promise that his employer would file a green card application. He was told the money would go to attorneys' fees.
For four years, the engineer asked about his application and was repeatedly told it was coming along. The employer blamed the slow progress on the law firm. In fact, the employer had never filed the application. Finally, the engineer found other work and restarted his efforts to obtain permanent residence.
In another case, a senior strategic projects manager who has an engineering background and is working for a Fortune 100 company has been waiting 13 years for his green card, Arumbakkam said.
That manager, also Indian, applied for permanent residency in Canada at the same time he applied for it in the States. After 18 months, Canada offered it to him and his family. His wife and children moved to Vancouver, B.C., where he visits regularly while waiting for a change in his U.S. residency status.
Indians in the United States often have too much trust in their employers and lack knowledge of resources that could help them understand their immigration options, Arumbakkam said. He plans to attend an Immigration Voice rally in Washington on Sept. 18 to urge congressional action on immigration.
But he isn't optimistic. "I just feel that I'm getting pushed further down as far as my career is concerned," he said.
...................
The link is http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=314X3PTACJUWMQSNDLOSK HSCJUNN2JVN;?articleID=201802703
EE Times: Latest News
Green-card red tape sends valuable engineers packing
Disenchanted with life in immigration limbo, San Antonio resident Praveen Arumbakkam is abandoning his American dream and returning to his native India.
A senior programmer at a fast-growing IT company, Arumbakkam volunteered for the Red Cross in Texas after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. He worked on disaster recovery management software to locate displaced persons, track donations and organize aid distribution.
He had hoped to start a nonprofit disaster recovery management solutions company in the United States, but now he's decided he doesn't want to wait any longer for his green card.
When professionals such as Arumbakkam give up on the States, it creates serious economic consequences, said Vivek Wadhwa, lead author of a study on the subject released last week.
"We've set the stage here for a massive reverse brain drain," said Wadhwa, Wertheim Fellow at Harvard Law School's Labor and Worklife Program.
By the end of fiscal 2006, half a million foreign nationals living in the U.S. were waiting for employment-based green cards, according to the study, released by the nonprofit Kauffman Foundation. Titled "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain," the study was based on research by Duke, Harvard and New York University. If spouses and children are included, the number exceeds 1 million.
The study looked at the three main types of employment-based green cards, which cover skill-based immigrants and their immediate families. Including pros- pective immigrants awaiting U.S. legal permanent resident status but living abroad, the numbers hit almost 600,000 in the first group and almost 1.2 million in the second.
The number of available green cards in the three categories totals approximately 120,000. "If there are over a million persons in line for 120,000 visas a year, then we have already mortgaged almost nine years' worth of employment visas," said study author Guillermina Jasso, an NYU sociology professor.
The report also notes that foreign nationals were listed as inventors or co-inventors on 25.6 percent of the international-patent app-lications filed from the United States in 2006, up from 7.6 percent in 1998.
U.S. companies bring in many highly skilled foreigners on temporary visas and train them in U.S. business practices, noted Wadhwa, an executive in residence at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering. Those workers are then forced to leave, and "they become our competitors. That's as stupid as it gets," he said. "How can this country be so dumb as to bring people in on temporary visas, train them in our way of doing business and then send them back to compete with us?"
Many in the engineering profession argue that American tech employers take advantage of the work visa system for their own benefit. They state that though there is plenty of American engineering talent available, employers use the programs to hire cheaper foreign labor.
And others counter the concern that large numbers of foreign residents will depart America. Most immigrants who have waited years for green cards will remain firm in their resolve, given the time and effort they have already invested, believes Norm Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California at Davis. "People are here because they want to be here," he said. "They place a high value on immigrating."
But while Arumbakkam wants to be here, he has had enough of waiting. And his story is typical of those foreign-born tech professionals who return home.
In July 2001, the then 27-year-old Arumbakkam arrived on a student visa to get his master's in information technology at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York. He has a bachelor's degree from the highly ranked University of Madras in southern India.
Arumbakkam said he "pretty much loved the society and the infrastructure for advanced education" in the States. In the post-Sept. 11 climate toward foreigners, however, he found it difficult to get work. After sending out countless resumes, he took an internship in Baltimore, followed by a job in Michigan.
That post didn't bring him any closer to his goal of permanent residency, however. He next took a job in San Antonio and insisted his employer secure him a green card. About that time, the government established an "application backlog elimination" center. "My application went straight into this chasm. I don't know what happened after that," he said. "That was pretty much a blow."
In 2005, he landed his current job, where he's happy with the work environment and the salary. His employer applied for a green card when the government rolled out an online system that was supposed to streamline the process.
But since then, with two applications in the works, Arumbakkam has been waiting-and waiting. In the meantime, his work status can't change, meaning no pay raises or promotions.
Page 2 of 2
Arumbakkam knows plenty of others in the same boat. In early 2006, he ran across Immigration Voice, a nonprofit national group that supports changes in immigration law affecting highly skilled workers. The 22,000-member organization includes professionals in a wide range of fields, from engineers and doctors to architects. Many have families, and all are stuck in the legal process.
"I heard horror stories," said Arumbakkam. One is the tale of a quality assurance engineer employed by a midsized consulting firm in Oklahoma working with Fortune 50 companies. The Indian engineer was hired at a salary that was 30 percent lower than he expected. This was in exchange for the promise that his employer would file a green card application. He was told the money would go to attorneys' fees.
For four years, the engineer asked about his application and was repeatedly told it was coming along. The employer blamed the slow progress on the law firm. In fact, the employer had never filed the application. Finally, the engineer found other work and restarted his efforts to obtain permanent residence.
In another case, a senior strategic projects manager who has an engineering background and is working for a Fortune 100 company has been waiting 13 years for his green card, Arumbakkam said.
That manager, also Indian, applied for permanent residency in Canada at the same time he applied for it in the States. After 18 months, Canada offered it to him and his family. His wife and children moved to Vancouver, B.C., where he visits regularly while waiting for a change in his U.S. residency status.
Indians in the United States often have too much trust in their employers and lack knowledge of resources that could help them understand their immigration options, Arumbakkam said. He plans to attend an Immigration Voice rally in Washington on Sept. 18 to urge congressional action on immigration.
But he isn't optimistic. "I just feel that I'm getting pushed further down as far as my career is concerned," he said.
...................
wallpaper lindsay lohan machete pool.
wonderlust
09-27 04:34 PM
You are wrong! I am not indian, my friends from China, Sweden, Poland, Russia, Philipine, and Vietnam were there. You just did not see the pics.:D
Ras, looking at the photo at the rally, I think you got the point. Not much attended and I don't see any other nationals there.
Ras, looking at the photo at the rally, I think you got the point. Not much attended and I don't see any other nationals there.
pappu
11-16 09:24 AM
Hello Experts,
I am on H1 and have my labor approved. My spouse is on F1 and we are filing I-140. Would there be a problem?
Because of Retrogression for India we cannot file for I-485 yet.
Please advise
Thanks
S A
I vaguely remember this question being asked in one of the lawyer conference calls. you may want to check the recordings.
I am on H1 and have my labor approved. My spouse is on F1 and we are filing I-140. Would there be a problem?
Because of Retrogression for India we cannot file for I-485 yet.
Please advise
Thanks
S A
I vaguely remember this question being asked in one of the lawyer conference calls. you may want to check the recordings.
2011 at Lindsay Lohan#39;s MACHETE
logiclife
09-25 12:07 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
more...
ArunAntonio
06-20 05:24 PM
You don't HAVE an A# yet - it is the number you get on your greencard
The A# is a case number that USCIS assigns to certain people, and then (usually, for exceptions see below) stays with you for the rest of your life, much like a Social Security Number. Most people get their A# when they apply for adjustment of status. It is also assigned if you apply for an employment authorization document (such as an F-1 OPT), a V visa, find yourself in deportation proceedings, and in a number of other situations.
Many USCIS forms ask for the A#. If you do not have one yet, simply write "None".
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
-
The A# is a case number that USCIS assigns to certain people, and then (usually, for exceptions see below) stays with you for the rest of your life, much like a Social Security Number. Most people get their A# when they apply for adjustment of status. It is also assigned if you apply for an employment authorization document (such as an F-1 OPT), a V visa, find yourself in deportation proceedings, and in a number of other situations.
Many USCIS forms ask for the A#. If you do not have one yet, simply write "None".
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
-
pmpforgc
10-31 02:49 PM
Hi
My sch-A appln. I-140 was approved on Oct-30.
I also got LUDs on I-485s of me and my family on Oct-31.
Does that suggest anything or it is just routine update after I-140 apporval?
Your experienced input will help.
My sch-A appln. I-140 was approved on Oct-30.
I also got LUDs on I-485s of me and my family on Oct-31.
Does that suggest anything or it is just routine update after I-140 apporval?
Your experienced input will help.
more...
chanduv23
03-14 05:51 PM
Status should not be a problem, but double check with a lawyer. I'm wondering if you can squeeze a sponsorship for a trip home. Not very long ago, I found out that if a US employer terminates a H1, they need to pay the home country relocation costs.
You should find another job, sooner the better. But I sure would like to get such bad desi consultant companies to pay for a plane ticket.
u r kidding - u think these blood suckers will sponser a ticket after u leave them - he heee. AFAIK, even American companies won't bother after u get layed off
You should find another job, sooner the better. But I sure would like to get such bad desi consultant companies to pay for a plane ticket.
u r kidding - u think these blood suckers will sponser a ticket after u leave them - he heee. AFAIK, even American companies won't bother after u get layed off
2010 Lindsay Lohan as The Sister in
MetteBB
05-12 12:50 PM
Choice of fonts is poor. :hat:
Tommy I do so love your elaborate comments ;) and your positive attitude :to:
/mette :rabbit:
Tommy I do so love your elaborate comments ;) and your positive attitude :to:
/mette :rabbit:
more...
socal117
10-30 10:00 AM
same here....July 2nd...nothing.....:mad::mad::mad:
hair lindsay lohan machete picture.
mambarg
07-20 07:04 PM
Copy of notice is fine.
more...
mkrisa
08-11 01:23 PM
bumping
hot PICS: Lindsay Lohan in Machete
voldemar
03-21 10:51 AM
3)Once back on H4, and in future If I want to get back on h1, Am I subject to cap?
Yes you will be subject to cap.No, if you had H1 before (in 6 years) you are not subject to cap.
Yes you will be subject to cap.No, if you had H1 before (in 6 years) you are not subject to cap.
more...
house Machete, Lindsay Lohan
nifedge
04-23 05:52 PM
I hope I were close to the border too :)
tattoo Lindsay Lohan como monja en
sniranjank
07-23 02:08 PM
Delivery date: Jul 19, 2007 9:29 AM
Sign for by: K.LAWSON
EB3- India - Jul03
Sign for by: K.LAWSON
EB3- India - Jul03
more...
pictures lindsay lohan machete. lindsay lohan machete poster
LondonTown
05-23 12:21 PM
Only one application is needed.
I was in the same situation several years ago and I personally filed ONLY ONE I-129 requesting 'recapture the time' and 'extension of stay' for 7th year.
Your LCA's and I-129s end date should be the date after one year plus days to recapture.
Since USCIS has returned your one year application, you may want to check the end date of the application that USCIS has kept for processing. If the end date is not greater or equal to at least 1 year then there is an issue.
Mr Aggarwal, you might remember you gave me suggestion of going out of US for few days and then my employer can apply 2 I-129 applications simultanously.
Here was my case : I am on H-1B status since May 2005 and my 6 years expired on 12th May 2011. My employer applied for LC on 15th May 2010 which is still pending ( under audit ). In order for us to seek 7th year extension, I went out of US for 4 days and came back bcz I have to be in status on the day my labor was going to be 365 days pending. My employer filed two I-129 applications, ( both applications under normal processing) one for seeing 4 days to recoup, and 2nd application for 7th year extension But USCIS sent 2nd application back alongwith fee and gave us only 1 file number. Why is that?
Is it because they can accept only 1 application at a time( for 4 days extension) and wont entertain 2nd application unless 1st has been decided?
Or .. Are they going to do processing for whole 1 year and 4 months in same application and returned the extra fee of 2nd application?
I am confused now, because what if they are processing only 1st application and give me just 4 day extension after 2 months. Also, shall my employer be able to file 2nd application after 2 months when I am out of status ?
Please help .
I was in the same situation several years ago and I personally filed ONLY ONE I-129 requesting 'recapture the time' and 'extension of stay' for 7th year.
Your LCA's and I-129s end date should be the date after one year plus days to recapture.
Since USCIS has returned your one year application, you may want to check the end date of the application that USCIS has kept for processing. If the end date is not greater or equal to at least 1 year then there is an issue.
Mr Aggarwal, you might remember you gave me suggestion of going out of US for few days and then my employer can apply 2 I-129 applications simultanously.
Here was my case : I am on H-1B status since May 2005 and my 6 years expired on 12th May 2011. My employer applied for LC on 15th May 2010 which is still pending ( under audit ). In order for us to seek 7th year extension, I went out of US for 4 days and came back bcz I have to be in status on the day my labor was going to be 365 days pending. My employer filed two I-129 applications, ( both applications under normal processing) one for seeing 4 days to recoup, and 2nd application for 7th year extension But USCIS sent 2nd application back alongwith fee and gave us only 1 file number. Why is that?
Is it because they can accept only 1 application at a time( for 4 days extension) and wont entertain 2nd application unless 1st has been decided?
Or .. Are they going to do processing for whole 1 year and 4 months in same application and returned the extra fee of 2nd application?
I am confused now, because what if they are processing only 1st application and give me just 4 day extension after 2 months. Also, shall my employer be able to file 2nd application after 2 months when I am out of status ?
Please help .
dresses machete-lohan.jpg Are Lindsay
gc_lover
06-25 09:33 PM
I am not sure about what went wrong with H1/H4 situation. But if you are worried about filing your 485 then you can go ahead with it and later you can add your spouse to your 485 application. Try to get your spouse back ASAP.
Please check with a lawyer before doing anything.
Please check with a lawyer before doing anything.
more...
makeup LINK LOVE:Lindsay Lohan#39;s
indyanguy
01-30 07:59 AM
Bumping for help . Thanks
girlfriend lindsay lohan machete Machete
dpp
06-27 11:41 AM
I filed my 485 last week and didn't file for EAD. My spouse is filing 485 next week and i will be a dependent in that application. If i apply for EAD in his application, can i use it to invoke AC21 if i have to change job after 6 months under my 485?
I have read here that EAD is not necessary for AC21, but my lawyer said its needed.
You cannot file more than one AOS petition per applicant. They may reject all of them. Otherwise it will be a mess like how it is there now for PERM and I-140 petitions.
I have read here that EAD is not necessary for AC21, but my lawyer said its needed.
You cannot file more than one AOS petition per applicant. They may reject all of them. Otherwise it will be a mess like how it is there now for PERM and I-140 petitions.
hairstyles lindsay-lohan-machete-
HumHongeKamiyab
03-16 12:18 PM
Agreed.. But again something has to trigger the movement. Eg. I can understand that happening, if you file AC21 and you receive RFE. Or Your GC filing employer revoking your I 140 and you receive I-485 Denial letter etc.
Or it can simply happen any time?
Or it can simply happen any time?
venky08
06-22 03:01 PM
there is no rule that says your spouse must have your last name. it is just your personal preference. (i am talking from the prespective of immigration application)
guesswho
04-10 11:59 AM
That sucks :(
