kart2007
05-15 03:26 PM
I know many people working here in my city who are from TCS. TCS blatantly breaks rules and sends these people on L1 visas while paying them an Indian salary and a minimal per diem for their time in the U.S. They don't even get enough for renting a car and I see many of these poor guys walking from their apartment blocks to the office. It's good exercise (for one's physical health) but the intent of the company is exploitation and nothing else :mad:
In addition, I notice that many of these recruits are here not for long term jobs but for gaining enough knowledge so that those jobs can be outsourced back to the home country. That has started to make many of my American colleagues really mad. But it's the fault of the company, not these poor guys who don't have seem to have a clue what a bad deal it is until they arrive here.
Sad to say, Wipro, Infosys and the rest in their flock are no better.
Yup, TCS, Infosys, Cognizant, Patni etc are all offenders. Its sad to see L1s getting such a paltry salary.
For H1 there are rules that are laid out for minimum wages but not for L1 (I think). Even then these Indian companies pay the least they have to to H1 visa holders.
In addition, I notice that many of these recruits are here not for long term jobs but for gaining enough knowledge so that those jobs can be outsourced back to the home country. That has started to make many of my American colleagues really mad. But it's the fault of the company, not these poor guys who don't have seem to have a clue what a bad deal it is until they arrive here.
Sad to say, Wipro, Infosys and the rest in their flock are no better.
Yup, TCS, Infosys, Cognizant, Patni etc are all offenders. Its sad to see L1s getting such a paltry salary.
For H1 there are rules that are laid out for minimum wages but not for L1 (I think). Even then these Indian companies pay the least they have to to H1 visa holders.
wallpaper HOME | Nature#39;s Paintings
amitjoey
11-01 10:03 AM
Talk to your local congressman/woman's office or Senator's office. Their office can get it expedited
jgh_res
08-10 01:55 PM
u wud have reported a LS guy to USCIS??????
I think USCIS or DOL is the one which approves cases based on LS. They have a big database of people who used that....
How many of the ppl who r disgusted by LS have contributed anything to IV or its cause, but are very happy to file their 485. Dude, nobody is a Mahatma Gandhi here....
I have never met someone on LS... but I can assure you, if I ever find one of them, I will report USCIS and other authorities.. that is for sure.:mad:
I think USCIS or DOL is the one which approves cases based on LS. They have a big database of people who used that....
How many of the ppl who r disgusted by LS have contributed anything to IV or its cause, but are very happy to file their 485. Dude, nobody is a Mahatma Gandhi here....
I have never met someone on LS... but I can assure you, if I ever find one of them, I will report USCIS and other authorities.. that is for sure.:mad:
2011 Nature Sanctuary Painting
boys1729
04-10 09:57 AM
I know many Indian students in my uni who have cheated and plagiarized and somehow graduated and then gone to these fraud consultants who applied for their h1-b.
Last year I knew at least few Desi masters students who were caught for plagiarism and suspended, but those guys/girls went to a desi fraud consultant who applied for their h1-b based on their bachelors while they were doing there their masters (they had no job, nothing) and guess what?.. they got it!
There are not many desi students at my uni, I have heard these things are very common and happen at a large scale at bigger schools. A lot them of don�t bother to really study because they know would somehow find a job and visa through a bodyshop consultant after they graduate. If these students could do a job, I think anyone in the world could do what they are doing,. no talent or skill is required!
These bodyshops consultant are just bad for everyone- for deserving students, schools and industries.
So I think bodyshops consultant should not be allowed to apply for h1-b at least.
Last year I knew at least few Desi masters students who were caught for plagiarism and suspended, but those guys/girls went to a desi fraud consultant who applied for their h1-b based on their bachelors while they were doing there their masters (they had no job, nothing) and guess what?.. they got it!
There are not many desi students at my uni, I have heard these things are very common and happen at a large scale at bigger schools. A lot them of don�t bother to really study because they know would somehow find a job and visa through a bodyshop consultant after they graduate. If these students could do a job, I think anyone in the world could do what they are doing,. no talent or skill is required!
These bodyshops consultant are just bad for everyone- for deserving students, schools and industries.
So I think bodyshops consultant should not be allowed to apply for h1-b at least.
more...
suresh.emails
08-07 06:04 PM
Even if I back date my marriage (as advised) , How can I get my future wife to USA?. I cannot get her on depend status as my H1-B (I believe) got canceled on approval of GC.
Issues I see,
1. The back date of marriage must match to my stay at India.
2. I did not visit India in the last one year.
3. I applied my I-485 in the August 2008 time. So (I must mention my marriage and dependents in the application). Which I did not . So this does not work.
See the troubles I have now.
P.S: I did not want to cheat USA Immigration Dept. Not a good practice
Let me know if there are any guanine ways.
Issues I see,
1. The back date of marriage must match to my stay at India.
2. I did not visit India in the last one year.
3. I applied my I-485 in the August 2008 time. So (I must mention my marriage and dependents in the application). Which I did not . So this does not work.
See the troubles I have now.
P.S: I did not want to cheat USA Immigration Dept. Not a good practice
Let me know if there are any guanine ways.
Legal
05-29 04:53 PM
That's not true. They will still process backlogged applications filed prior
when he says no green cards will be issued he means no I-140s will be
approved which is true.
when he says no green cards will be issued he means no I-140s will be
approved which is true.
more...
stirfries
08-19 07:09 PM
Hello Friends,
As you might have guessed, I am on the EB3 bandwagon because of circumstances that were beyond my control [The filing attorney screwed up :( ]
At the time of my EB3 filing (Feb. 2004) I did possess a Masters degree and more than 5 years of Work Experience and the job responsibility that my petition was filed for, did require a Senior worker with Masters experience. Unfortunately, things didn't go that way and here I am.
I keep reading about some lucky souls [god bless their souls :) ] who have managed to retain their priority dates and converted to EB2.
I really want to do that. I am not sure where to start.
1. I used AC21 and took up a new job recently. Do I approach my new employer and talk to them to see whether they would be able to file my petition in EB2 category? The bad thing is, when I joined them, I told them I don't need any sponsorship or assistance from them. It would be a volte face to go back to them and request them to do something. And the best part is, there is no guarantee that my company would file my petition.
2. Do I look for a new employment and if and when I clear the selection process, do I tell them that the only way I could join them is if they could file my EB2 petition? If they think that my services is a necessity, they might do it else they might look for other candidates. It s like throwing a dice.
3. Do I look around for desi consulting companies that would file my EB2 and in return I work for them (using my EAD) through the EB2 petition/adjudication process. With this approach, the desi companies might do it, but like other people, I also think the reputation of these desi consulting companies is severely dented and there is all the more chance that the EB2 petition might get denied.
Gurus...any help or advise or information is really appreciated.
Thanks,
As you might have guessed, I am on the EB3 bandwagon because of circumstances that were beyond my control [The filing attorney screwed up :( ]
At the time of my EB3 filing (Feb. 2004) I did possess a Masters degree and more than 5 years of Work Experience and the job responsibility that my petition was filed for, did require a Senior worker with Masters experience. Unfortunately, things didn't go that way and here I am.
I keep reading about some lucky souls [god bless their souls :) ] who have managed to retain their priority dates and converted to EB2.
I really want to do that. I am not sure where to start.
1. I used AC21 and took up a new job recently. Do I approach my new employer and talk to them to see whether they would be able to file my petition in EB2 category? The bad thing is, when I joined them, I told them I don't need any sponsorship or assistance from them. It would be a volte face to go back to them and request them to do something. And the best part is, there is no guarantee that my company would file my petition.
2. Do I look for a new employment and if and when I clear the selection process, do I tell them that the only way I could join them is if they could file my EB2 petition? If they think that my services is a necessity, they might do it else they might look for other candidates. It s like throwing a dice.
3. Do I look around for desi consulting companies that would file my EB2 and in return I work for them (using my EAD) through the EB2 petition/adjudication process. With this approach, the desi companies might do it, but like other people, I also think the reputation of these desi consulting companies is severely dented and there is all the more chance that the EB2 petition might get denied.
Gurus...any help or advise or information is really appreciated.
Thanks,
2010 gogh Painting wallpaper
wahwah
06-05 02:59 PM
andy garcia,
its not about reading it 10 times....but you're incorrect - read this portion in the memo dont just blindly read the "must be approved I-140 portion" of the memo.
it clearly says that the new memo is not any different from what was said back in 2005. here is the excerpt from the new memo:
In order to be considered valid, an I-140 petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a portability request made under INA � 204(j).
The holding in this decision is consistent with the guidance previously provided in the answer to Question 1, Section 1, on page 3 of the December 27, 2005 memorandum entitled Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313).
and by the way...here is the Q1, Section 1 page the memo is talking about....
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.[/I][/I][/I][/I]
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
its not about reading it 10 times....but you're incorrect - read this portion in the memo dont just blindly read the "must be approved I-140 portion" of the memo.
it clearly says that the new memo is not any different from what was said back in 2005. here is the excerpt from the new memo:
In order to be considered valid, an I-140 petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a portability request made under INA � 204(j).
The holding in this decision is consistent with the guidance previously provided in the answer to Question 1, Section 1, on page 3 of the December 27, 2005 memorandum entitled Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313).
and by the way...here is the Q1, Section 1 page the memo is talking about....
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.[/I][/I][/I][/I]
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
more...
jonty_11
05-22 03:03 PM
All this while we legal folks have been renewing our H1B's with overlapping time intervals so taht there is no Gaps....now that sounds like a stupid thing to have done....
we should have left gaps in our H1 Transfers ...just so we could be illegal
we should have left gaps in our H1 Transfers ...just so we could be illegal
hair $68.00. Landscape Oil Painting
mhb
07-06 06:19 PM
just been informed that the newscast is going is to happen tommorow. apparently there was some "breaking" news!! guys make sure you tune in tomorrow!!
try calling CARL SEARS he is the guy who puts up these newscast.
try calling CARL SEARS he is the guy who puts up these newscast.
more...
tabletpc
09-24 12:13 PM
u r PD is March 2006, when was it current...???
In case u r GC got approved while u r PD was current then, sorry to say as for as my knwoledge goes, you may not have much option other than bringing u r spouse on F1/L1/H1.
In case u r GC got approved while u r PD was current then, sorry to say as for as my knwoledge goes, you may not have much option other than bringing u r spouse on F1/L1/H1.
hot Painting-Abstract-Nature#39;s
whoever
04-13 08:23 AM
I dont think there will be any movement for May and June. July could see a big movement.
more...
house modern art nature painting
willwin
06-12 11:02 AM
Can we have some update at 11 AM ?
Looks like they are talking about unemployment now ....
I guess it is 11 am EST, correct?
Looks like they are talking about unemployment now ....
I guess it is 11 am EST, correct?
tattoo paintings of nature abstract.
ragz4u
03-16 01:32 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18845
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
more...
pictures The Green Nature Painting !
gc_check
05-11 01:27 PM
Obama getting ready for 2012 Campaign !!!
(http://www.barackobama.com/get-involved)
(http://www.barackobama.com/get-involved)
dresses paintings from nature.
ngodisha
07-04 08:37 PM
$550 excluding the attorney fee as the company was paying for it.
more...
makeup Such paintings seem to whisper
HarshJ
10-02 01:22 PM
Hi,
Filed at NSC on Jul 21st. Received as per FedEx receipt on Jul 23rd. Transferred I-485s, EADs and APs applications from NSC to CSC.
Received EADs and APs on Sept 25th from CSC.
Sept 18th notice received that I-485s have been moved back from CSC to NSC.
Rceipt date for transfer notice is Sept 18th. Dont see my actual Jul 23rd date anywhere.
When I posted this on , posters suggested that there is a "Receipt Notice" versus a "Transfer Notice".
My lawyer received the receipt notice. Will check with him about the Receipt date on that notice and post later today.
Any other ideas what this all means would be appreciated.
Seems like a ping pong ball being hit from one center to another with no result
:(
Filed at NSC on Jul 21st. Received as per FedEx receipt on Jul 23rd. Transferred I-485s, EADs and APs applications from NSC to CSC.
Received EADs and APs on Sept 25th from CSC.
Sept 18th notice received that I-485s have been moved back from CSC to NSC.
Rceipt date for transfer notice is Sept 18th. Dont see my actual Jul 23rd date anywhere.
When I posted this on , posters suggested that there is a "Receipt Notice" versus a "Transfer Notice".
My lawyer received the receipt notice. Will check with him about the Receipt date on that notice and post later today.
Any other ideas what this all means would be appreciated.
Seems like a ping pong ball being hit from one center to another with no result
:(
girlfriend paintings of nature
pointlesswait
01-04 09:27 AM
well..if he converts to a Mormon and moves to Iowa..he can have many wifes:D
hairstyles painting, Lily, nature
same_old_guy
05-15 02:08 AM
Contending that the H-1B visa programme is being abused to displace qualified American workers, two US lawmakers have asked nine foreign-based firms, including some leading Indian companies that used 20,000 of such visas, to disclose details about their workforce and their use of the special programme.
The companies the senators sent letters to were Infosys Technologies, Wipro Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Patni Computer Systems, I-Flex Solutions Inc., Satyam Computer Services Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Tech Mahindra Americas Inc. and Mphasis Corp.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_asks_Infy_Wipro_to_explain_use_of_H-1Bs/articleshow/2046743.cms
The companies the senators sent letters to were Infosys Technologies, Wipro Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Patni Computer Systems, I-Flex Solutions Inc., Satyam Computer Services Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Tech Mahindra Americas Inc. and Mphasis Corp.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_asks_Infy_Wipro_to_explain_use_of_H-1Bs/articleshow/2046743.cms
garybanz
11-03 01:28 PM
There is no such law that specifies any duration one has to be employed by GC (or AC-21) employer. Period.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
If that is the case, then why is it that all immigration attorneys are asking us to stay with our current employers citing this "Intent" thing? Are you saying that it's all smoke and no fire?
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
If that is the case, then why is it that all immigration attorneys are asking us to stay with our current employers citing this "Intent" thing? Are you saying that it's all smoke and no fire?
akgind
07-13 08:24 PM
I completely empathize with you, salcom3. My daughter is in similar boat.
Apart from what IV might do, each of us should write immediately to as many Senators and House Members as possible with our own story, pointing out the unfair treatment of those who are trying to play by the rules.
I totally agree with you akgind.
Here is my daughter's case:
1994 she was 8 years old when we brought her to USA
2002 asylum case was denied, we had to go back to our country (we didn't stay illegaly)
2002 after one month we came back, with H-1 visa, daughter with H-4
2003 I applied for LC
2006 My daughter turned 21 - She had to change status to F-1 (of course college fees were triple). She is out of LC process because of her age.
2007 LC approved, she is still F-1 and paying a lot of money in tuition.
I mean, these kids like my daughter (and I am sure there are thousands like her), deserve a break too. If the DREAM ACT is going to benefit illegal persons, it should also benefit children that have waited for their parents' LC process for long years only to see their hopes destroyed.
Apart from what IV might do, each of us should write immediately to as many Senators and House Members as possible with our own story, pointing out the unfair treatment of those who are trying to play by the rules.
I totally agree with you akgind.
Here is my daughter's case:
1994 she was 8 years old when we brought her to USA
2002 asylum case was denied, we had to go back to our country (we didn't stay illegaly)
2002 after one month we came back, with H-1 visa, daughter with H-4
2003 I applied for LC
2006 My daughter turned 21 - She had to change status to F-1 (of course college fees were triple). She is out of LC process because of her age.
2007 LC approved, she is still F-1 and paying a lot of money in tuition.
I mean, these kids like my daughter (and I am sure there are thousands like her), deserve a break too. If the DREAM ACT is going to benefit illegal persons, it should also benefit children that have waited for their parents' LC process for long years only to see their hopes destroyed.