reddymjm
03-26 09:23 AM
EB3-India with PD 2003 and before - Most will be out by December 2008 -
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
Hey mine is EB3 March 2003. I am expecting some good news IN 2009 summer. If I get it before that I think it is a miracle looking at the USCIS activity.
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
Hey mine is EB3 March 2003. I am expecting some good news IN 2009 summer. If I get it before that I think it is a miracle looking at the USCIS activity.
wallpaper Idris Elba.jpg
pitha
07-05 01:53 PM
If this guy from USCIS (Emilio T. Gonzalez) is an anti immigrant then he might think this is an appreciation from anti immigrants. dont you want to convey to him that these flowers are actually from people who got screwed by him and uscis
Hi,
I request every one who effected with the Revised JULY visa bulletin to send the flowers.
I am sure we get some media and political atten....
Select Occasion: "Sympathy"
The message: All the best for future Employment Based visa estimates
Delivery location type is Business, US Citizenship and Immigration Service
Address:
Emilio T. Gonzalez
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
Thanks,
Chandra.
Hi,
I request every one who effected with the Revised JULY visa bulletin to send the flowers.
I am sure we get some media and political atten....
Select Occasion: "Sympathy"
The message: All the best for future Employment Based visa estimates
Delivery location type is Business, US Citizenship and Immigration Service
Address:
Emilio T. Gonzalez
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
Thanks,
Chandra.
FinalGC
08-20 03:45 PM
Guys:
For all those who are waiting...I would suggest one more thing, if your file is not touched. My lawyer had sent an email to NSC on Aug 2. I believe that along with my SR might have done the trick.....Sheela Murthy was my lawyer....that too might have helped....Who know what works....but we can all try.....Hope all who are stuck, get their GC by end of this month.
Take Care
For all those who are waiting...I would suggest one more thing, if your file is not touched. My lawyer had sent an email to NSC on Aug 2. I believe that along with my SR might have done the trick.....Sheela Murthy was my lawyer....that too might have helped....Who know what works....but we can all try.....Hope all who are stuck, get their GC by end of this month.
Take Care
2011 Idris Elba as Heimdall?
mqualique
05-01 01:47 PM
Even if FB 2 almost has same priority date as EB 2 or 3 once the EB dependents quota gets counted against FB quota almost half of the EB backlog would move to FB which will cause progression in EB dates and retrogression in FB dates. Anyway I think simple1 point is definitely a good point and worthy of further discussion and clarification from attorneys.
Dependends will come under
FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES
Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent
Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:
The priority date will be same as the primary because the law states that primary and dependents have the same priority date. FB 2 is almost same priority dated as EB 1,2 and 3 preferences.
Primary -> Gets visa number from EB 1,2 or 3
Dependents -> Gets visa number from FB2
Wife and children need not wait because FB2 is not that retrogressed.
Dependends will come under
FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES
Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent
Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:
The priority date will be same as the primary because the law states that primary and dependents have the same priority date. FB 2 is almost same priority dated as EB 1,2 and 3 preferences.
Primary -> Gets visa number from EB 1,2 or 3
Dependents -> Gets visa number from FB2
Wife and children need not wait because FB2 is not that retrogressed.
more...
obviously
04-24 10:53 AM
Folks, it is time for the H1B community to grow up. Business is business. I am not a blood sucking deshi firm, or a silent partner. On the contrary, I happen to be a trained mediator, published author on conflict management and professional in strategy/organizations. My view is pretty simple: mathematical 'tit for tat' doesnt take you far. Build, nourish and manage relationships. Money and math are secondary. Its time to grow up.
MR. Obviously
MR. Obviously
mayitbesoon
09-08 11:12 AM
TSC EAD Paper filing for me and spouse.
RD 8/12
ND 8/13 No LUDs
AD 8/28
RD 8/12
ND 8/13 No LUDs
AD 8/28
more...
sam0407
09-20 04:20 PM
Just got update from my layer that they have received 6 RN's for me and my wife. I filed our AOS on 9th-July-2007 at NSC. My I-140 was filed at NSC last year but it was not approved at the time of my AOS filing. Last week I also got my I-140 approved. I am on EB2.
Wish everybody get their RN's soon.. It should be just matter of days.
Wish everybody get their RN's soon.. It should be just matter of days.
2010 Heimdall? idris elba thor
vbkris77
09-24 01:53 PM
We tend to forget that we are not lawmakers :p
When EB3 talked about the fair share or EB2 talks about porting, its an unnecessary fight that gets us nowhere..
When we talk about CIS wasting the visas in the past that led us here and racist remnants of INA in establishing country limits on top of free enterprise selection, We all win..
I don't know how better I can say..
I agree.. Remember labor substitution was also legal once upon a time. However when people reported the facts to USCIS the labor substitution was banned..
But buy then major damage was done..
Therefore EB2 guys wake up till there is time.
The priority date should be always based on the particular labor filling or the filing of I140 (which ever applicable)
I am not against anyone getting GC. If everyome gets GC today, I am all for it. But no solution is in sight. But that does not mean someone elase will try to push EB2 back.
Therefore just wanted to let EB2 guys realize what will happen to them if no action is taken.
This is very simillar to labor substitution...
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
When EB3 talked about the fair share or EB2 talks about porting, its an unnecessary fight that gets us nowhere..
When we talk about CIS wasting the visas in the past that led us here and racist remnants of INA in establishing country limits on top of free enterprise selection, We all win..
I don't know how better I can say..
I agree.. Remember labor substitution was also legal once upon a time. However when people reported the facts to USCIS the labor substitution was banned..
But buy then major damage was done..
Therefore EB2 guys wake up till there is time.
The priority date should be always based on the particular labor filling or the filing of I140 (which ever applicable)
I am not against anyone getting GC. If everyome gets GC today, I am all for it. But no solution is in sight. But that does not mean someone elase will try to push EB2 back.
Therefore just wanted to let EB2 guys realize what will happen to them if no action is taken.
This is very simillar to labor substitution...
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
more...
gk_2000
07-20 04:27 PM
Correct me If I am wrong
out of 45K members let's assume 22.5 K are EB2 and 22.5 K are EB3.
Even If 11.25K (EB2)+11.25K (EB3) = 22.5 K (Total) contributes $25 Each Problems gets solved ... but the catch is ....
Even 11.25 K EB2 members are not contributing because they don't have to as their problem is solved
Even 11.25 K EB3 members are not contributing because they are not sure even with this contribution their problems gets solved.
Many people are saying that EB3 members are not contributing that's why you are lagging etc...
EB3 Members who contributed are feeling the pain because even after contribution they are not getting the results and EB2 members who didn't contributed are getting the results...
Could you elaborate on how the money will solve the problem? If we could make a laundry list of action items and cost for each, we could do an extensive email campaign among all our members and convince them to contribute
More people will contribute if and when they get a clear picture of how the money will work for them
And no, I am not making any statement here throwing suspicions and distrust or ill will. This is a suggestion for improving the contributions, which is coming across as a weak area
out of 45K members let's assume 22.5 K are EB2 and 22.5 K are EB3.
Even If 11.25K (EB2)+11.25K (EB3) = 22.5 K (Total) contributes $25 Each Problems gets solved ... but the catch is ....
Even 11.25 K EB2 members are not contributing because they don't have to as their problem is solved
Even 11.25 K EB3 members are not contributing because they are not sure even with this contribution their problems gets solved.
Many people are saying that EB3 members are not contributing that's why you are lagging etc...
EB3 Members who contributed are feeling the pain because even after contribution they are not getting the results and EB2 members who didn't contributed are getting the results...
Could you elaborate on how the money will solve the problem? If we could make a laundry list of action items and cost for each, we could do an extensive email campaign among all our members and convince them to contribute
More people will contribute if and when they get a clear picture of how the money will work for them
And no, I am not making any statement here throwing suspicions and distrust or ill will. This is a suggestion for improving the contributions, which is coming across as a weak area
hair English actor Idris Elba (28
alisa
12-12 12:24 AM
in one of the threads its said that all 90 senators had agreed to pass the SKIL as against one who did not (sen sessions) and since lame duck required unanimous voting it cud not, but when the demo's bring it up early next year, they would not need an unanimous vote on it but a majority vote? so statistically it sud get through? how far off am i on this?
Good question.
Also, I just learnt (through this forum) about 'hold'. Senator Sessions had put a 'hold' (a non-written tradition needing consent to raise in the senate) on the Cornyn bill.
Is that only for the lameduck session? Or is it true in general? Can senators put a 'hold' on a matter in any senate session? If that is true, then Senator Sessions can never even let this matter come up in senate in 2007 (and after.)
Good question.
Also, I just learnt (through this forum) about 'hold'. Senator Sessions had put a 'hold' (a non-written tradition needing consent to raise in the senate) on the Cornyn bill.
Is that only for the lameduck session? Or is it true in general? Can senators put a 'hold' on a matter in any senate session? If that is true, then Senator Sessions can never even let this matter come up in senate in 2007 (and after.)
more...
english_august
07-10 08:37 AM
DC folks - this is a visual event and if we don't have our own members covering this and are not available to talk to the reporters, it won't have the impact that we are hoping for.
I was just talking to a journalist and he said that it is important to get pictures.
Please it is not too late even now - take extended lunch today and join nixstor in supporting this. Send me a PM and I can give you his contact info.
I was just talking to a journalist and he said that it is important to get pictures.
Please it is not too late even now - take extended lunch today and join nixstor in supporting this. Send me a PM and I can give you his contact info.
hot Idris Elba Dishes on the THOR
ashatara78
05-01 03:21 PM
It is a good point that some people have brought up and I am sure IV core will evaluate it to see if it will help more people or less.
However.........
I strongly believe that family should be together. Whatever GC and other immigration issues we have, one should strive for keeping the family together at all times. Missing out on even a few years of togetherness with your spouse and kids is not worth it.
Even in the current system where dependents come under EB quota, I have known people where one spouse got the GC and the other one had to wait for many years because of a name check or something. But the current laws (EAD/AP etc) made sure that atleast the family was not broken up.
If we are looking for a change or correction of law, we need to make sure that the new law has NO kinks that hinder family staying together. If primary applicant gets a GC and the spouse is still waiting for 5 more years (it is possible), then the primary applicant can get citizenship and apply for a new GC for the secondary. Like I said - This situation is possible even in the current system.
As long as kinks are discussed with the lawyers and smoothened out to preserve family togetherness, it should be fine.
However.........
I strongly believe that family should be together. Whatever GC and other immigration issues we have, one should strive for keeping the family together at all times. Missing out on even a few years of togetherness with your spouse and kids is not worth it.
Even in the current system where dependents come under EB quota, I have known people where one spouse got the GC and the other one had to wait for many years because of a name check or something. But the current laws (EAD/AP etc) made sure that atleast the family was not broken up.
If we are looking for a change or correction of law, we need to make sure that the new law has NO kinks that hinder family staying together. If primary applicant gets a GC and the spouse is still waiting for 5 more years (it is possible), then the primary applicant can get citizenship and apply for a new GC for the secondary. Like I said - This situation is possible even in the current system.
As long as kinks are discussed with the lawyers and smoothened out to preserve family togetherness, it should be fine.
more...
house Idris Elba, star of the hit
ksam75
07-02 10:33 AM
Just called FedEx to find out why mine is not delivered yet. According to her, all USCIS packets remain at local FedEx facility. It seems FedEx will notify USCIS that there are packages to be picked up and they will be picked up by the USCIS agent (mail man??). It seems USCIS dont actually allow packets into their bldg. She says FedEX has no control on when the USCIS agent will come and pick up the package
tattoo Idris Elba, Marvel, Thor
seshuvaidehi
08-25 06:32 PM
Reached application to NSC on 7/23. No checks cashed yet.
Anybody else there with 7/23 received date?
Anybody else there with 7/23 received date?
more...
pictures She could have played Heimdall
arihant
05-04 03:43 PM
I don't think having a MS degree supercedes a BS always.
How can you compare say for example a BS+10 yrs person with a kid just out of school doing MS. Doesn't jive. I think at somepoint both level off. Just merely having a MS degree doesn't mean anything without experience.
IT is not just one such field. You would find other's too. Financial aspect that you are talking is a whole different topic
You are right in your observation. But, the SKIL Bill seems to place emphasis on people with advanced degrees. So, whether you and I agree about the Bachelors + work experience part or not, the fact of the matter is that the Bill exempts people with advanced degrees from cap limits.
How can you compare say for example a BS+10 yrs person with a kid just out of school doing MS. Doesn't jive. I think at somepoint both level off. Just merely having a MS degree doesn't mean anything without experience.
IT is not just one such field. You would find other's too. Financial aspect that you are talking is a whole different topic
You are right in your observation. But, the SKIL Bill seems to place emphasis on people with advanced degrees. So, whether you and I agree about the Bachelors + work experience part or not, the fact of the matter is that the Bill exempts people with advanced degrees from cap limits.
dresses Heimdall (Idris Elba)
desi3933
07-10 12:24 AM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (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. 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. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always 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 the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, 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?
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".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (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. 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. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always 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 the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, 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?
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".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
makeup have spoken to Idris Elba,
sanhari
07-16 05:09 PM
I am starting this new thread to discuss about EB visas spillover usage based on oldest priority date irrespective of category/country. Currently the spillover happens vertically(a top down approach) from EB1 -> EB2 -> EB3...etc. Instead it should be first used on cases with oldest priority date. This will not only give a good move to clear the backlog but will also be a fair rule for those who are patiently waiting in queue for a long time. I wrote my concern about this to my local congressman. I also request each one of you, who is impacted by this, or who is interested to help us out, to kindly contact your local congressman/woman to express your concern. In turn they can contact USCIS to implement this fair rule to help us all out.
girlfriend Heimdall: Thor: Idris Elba as
nc14
09-10 07:11 PM
Sadly you also chose not to answer psaxena's question :) Enlighten us with what you have done for IV.
Well Said mate! The problem in these forums is if you have an opinion that differs from the majority, you are considered a snob. Sadly the underlying problem is EB3-I and EB3-I alone nothing else. :)
Well Said mate! The problem in these forums is if you have an opinion that differs from the majority, you are considered a snob. Sadly the underlying problem is EB3-I and EB3-I alone nothing else. :)
hairstyles Idris Elba as Heimdall in Thor
amsgc
08-25 12:47 AM
gc28262,
The issue is not with desi consultants. It is with those companies who game the system and take advantage of workers from India. If you believe that the petition filed by your company is legit, then it is all good - you will never have to worry about any audit or RFE.
As I have said before, the problem arises when some companies file petitions when there isn't an immediate job offer. They often take money from the H-1B worker to file the petition and not pay them when they are on bench - making them vulnerable to USCIS audits. In my view this is bad for the H-1B program and everybody who is involed, and it should be investigated by the USCIS.
Now, there may not be many who do this - but a few bad apples have certainly given the rest of us a bad name.
Here are some of the red dot comments I recieved for my early posts. Not that I care about red dots.
<quote>
no. i was hired because i was good. you were hired because you were willing to work as a slave for 40k.
BAN desi consultants, hoarding H1B's from deserving people, BAN everyone who supports them
</quote>
To the poster of this message,
This country is not for incompetent people who fear desi-consultants.
The issue is not with desi consultants. It is with those companies who game the system and take advantage of workers from India. If you believe that the petition filed by your company is legit, then it is all good - you will never have to worry about any audit or RFE.
As I have said before, the problem arises when some companies file petitions when there isn't an immediate job offer. They often take money from the H-1B worker to file the petition and not pay them when they are on bench - making them vulnerable to USCIS audits. In my view this is bad for the H-1B program and everybody who is involed, and it should be investigated by the USCIS.
Now, there may not be many who do this - but a few bad apples have certainly given the rest of us a bad name.
Here are some of the red dot comments I recieved for my early posts. Not that I care about red dots.
<quote>
no. i was hired because i was good. you were hired because you were willing to work as a slave for 40k.
BAN desi consultants, hoarding H1B's from deserving people, BAN everyone who supports them
</quote>
To the poster of this message,
This country is not for incompetent people who fear desi-consultants.
abq_gc
08-20 11:57 AM
I guess, its fair to assume that all of our applications have been really transferred to TSC. Please keep on updating as soon as you guys get a receipt notice or yur checks get encashed.
Thanks,
Thanks,
sunofeast_gc
07-08 08:29 PM
140K GCs were available on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 2006: categories were not current.
< 40K GCs were available on June 12 2007: all categories were current.
If there is a law to prevent acceptance of ALL AOS's on Oct 1 (when 140K GCs are available) then that law was violated on June 12 2007.
If there is no law to prevent acceptance of AOS's on June 12 (when < 40K GCs were available) then all categories should have been current on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 1 2006.
macaca, This is really good point
< 40K GCs were available on June 12 2007: all categories were current.
If there is a law to prevent acceptance of ALL AOS's on Oct 1 (when 140K GCs are available) then that law was violated on June 12 2007.
If there is no law to prevent acceptance of AOS's on June 12 (when < 40K GCs were available) then all categories should have been current on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 1 2006.
macaca, This is really good point
No comments:
Post a Comment