gc_on_demand
02-11 01:15 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
Those extra 13k visas are very very helpful Vin13. That will reduce backlog for almost 8 months for Eb2 or Eb3 where ever it will go. Nice job in finding it out. We are ready to fight against USCIS / DOS for that waste . Just one small favor .. Can you get some sort of proof from Ron about this 13k ? May be any link on DOS site or any PDF or anything which is credible not just word. Once again thanks a lot for finding this out
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
Those extra 13k visas are very very helpful Vin13. That will reduce backlog for almost 8 months for Eb2 or Eb3 where ever it will go. Nice job in finding it out. We are ready to fight against USCIS / DOS for that waste . Just one small favor .. Can you get some sort of proof from Ron about this 13k ? May be any link on DOS site or any PDF or anything which is credible not just word. Once again thanks a lot for finding this out
wallpaper quotes for facebook status
greyhair
02-12 02:16 PM
hold on guys!!! i was the one who started this thread because i was not sure if ron was right or not but i guess seeing desi3933 comments that he is right and ron may not have the proof to justify this time.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
Please let me clarify. This is not a question of ambiguity in the meaning of the message. Its crystal clear. One immigration body shop said that 13K visas are wasted by USCIS. It has been proven with facts that the statement made by immigration body shop is factually incorrect. Its not the first time. But you continue to ask others to look for proof of USCIS wasting visa numbers even after looking at the data. I am totally perplexed by the obsession with immigration body shop when repeatedly similar inflaming messages have been discredited in the public arena. :confused: When is enough, enough.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
Please let me clarify. This is not a question of ambiguity in the meaning of the message. Its crystal clear. One immigration body shop said that 13K visas are wasted by USCIS. It has been proven with facts that the statement made by immigration body shop is factually incorrect. Its not the first time. But you continue to ask others to look for proof of USCIS wasting visa numbers even after looking at the data. I am totally perplexed by the obsession with immigration body shop when repeatedly similar inflaming messages have been discredited in the public arena. :confused: When is enough, enough.
singhsa3
03-04 12:41 PM
Already, spoken to couple of them. Anyways, the point is not that I get the mortgage, the point is that we get our GC or Admin fixes done.
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
2011 Spiritual Quotes on Facebook
ArkBird
04-06 07:25 PM
Again, What was POE?
Sure I will give the link..
I know its not fake..because I have 3 people on our floor who came from a visit..who saw these kind of things happening right in front of them (and my friends were GCs so I guess they themselves were left alone).
Now coming to point of posting their experiences themselves..especially in a situation where they were not allowed to enter US, I dont think they have any incentive left to post and seek help from fellow IV..once they are out they are out..
Nothing can bring them back unless they file a new petition and go for stamping..
I can imagine how much pain they might be going through, touchwood if I was to be one ofthem, I dont see myself posting my experience for 3 months or so..
its a different case where someone is inside US and they face a problem, yeah..why not they post straight away, but this is a different territory..we can only expect them to post, its not going to happen or may be rare case.
Sure I will give the link..
I know its not fake..because I have 3 people on our floor who came from a visit..who saw these kind of things happening right in front of them (and my friends were GCs so I guess they themselves were left alone).
Now coming to point of posting their experiences themselves..especially in a situation where they were not allowed to enter US, I dont think they have any incentive left to post and seek help from fellow IV..once they are out they are out..
Nothing can bring them back unless they file a new petition and go for stamping..
I can imagine how much pain they might be going through, touchwood if I was to be one ofthem, I dont see myself posting my experience for 3 months or so..
its a different case where someone is inside US and they face a problem, yeah..why not they post straight away, but this is a different territory..we can only expect them to post, its not going to happen or may be rare case.
more...
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Rajeev
02-04 10:50 AM
We will all meet at the Bridgewater temple Cafeteria tomorrow, that is, 02/03/2007 at 11.00 PM. I will get the flyers with me. We will be doing a black and white text on colored paper as that costs 9 cents/page compared to colored text on colored paper that costs 89 cents/page. Please be there on time.
Address for the temple is:
780 old Farm Road,
Bridgewater,
NJ 08807
Thanks,
Varsha
How did it go?
Address for the temple is:
780 old Farm Road,
Bridgewater,
NJ 08807
Thanks,
Varsha
How did it go?
more...
ajju
03-15 08:47 PM
C'mon guys, what the hell have you been doing for so long?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
Most of these guys were stuck in backlog.. Welcome to the world of USCIS/DOL/DHS... Some would be Name Check victims too.. Though not many.. But a lot in backlog... Plus labor substitution...
And when finaly most 2003 filed in July 2007 and had dates current for next 3 months.. The Processing was taking atleast 6 months...
I seriosly hope that not may atleast with 2003 PD.. and dates should move to 2004 and beyong soon.. and this is practically possible...
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
Most of these guys were stuck in backlog.. Welcome to the world of USCIS/DOL/DHS... Some would be Name Check victims too.. Though not many.. But a lot in backlog... Plus labor substitution...
And when finaly most 2003 filed in July 2007 and had dates current for next 3 months.. The Processing was taking atleast 6 months...
I seriosly hope that not may atleast with 2003 PD.. and dates should move to 2004 and beyong soon.. and this is practically possible...
2010 cool quotes for facebook. good
whiteStallion
09-10 04:48 PM
Talking about horses and your user id WhiteStallion is surreal. Dude looks like they are after all discussing a bill right up your alley :D
No offence. Just Kidding!!
I know! No offence taken!
I wish I could benefit from these lousy discussions(in the senate) about horses or legal immigrants in some way... Seems its now happening today !
No offence. Just Kidding!!
I know! No offence taken!
I wish I could benefit from these lousy discussions(in the senate) about horses or legal immigrants in some way... Seems its now happening today !
more...
ARUNRAMANATHAN
07-13 12:33 AM
well most the people are blood suckers ......until they grow up !
When they are a small start up firm they work for you ...after that it is the clerk who works for you not even a legal person.
Arun
When they are a small start up firm they work for you ...after that it is the clerk who works for you not even a legal person.
Arun
hair cute love sayings and quotes
nojoke
10-20 11:55 AM
He doesn't compare with Mccain on any of the issues except being able to talk. He spends more money running negative ads than Mccain. Then he says, john, 100% of your ads are negative where as only 50% of mine are negative. Which is true but if you dig further Mccain is spending 1bout 50Mil on negative ads where as Obama is spending 80Mil. Though he is correct in his percentages statement,is he really correct?
Any time any question is raised , call them slimy is another strategy of Obama. He did it with Clintons and he is doing with Mccain.
Give me an ad like "he is palling around with ...". Or "he is teaching sex for babies..." or..
I can go on. Obama has highlighted healthcare policy differences. That is not negative ad. The only negative ad I have seen is " he is erratic.."
Any time any question is raised , call them slimy is another strategy of Obama. He did it with Clintons and he is doing with Mccain.
Give me an ad like "he is palling around with ...". Or "he is teaching sex for babies..." or..
I can go on. Obama has highlighted healthcare policy differences. That is not negative ad. The only negative ad I have seen is " he is erratic.."
more...
meridiani.planum
03-03 06:13 PM
Consider this:
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visitors dramatically increase, if there are newsworthy events that affects most of the people.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not to be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information to the Media, and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
thats even worse. you are taking a poll of 500 people (*IF* you get that many respondents to this poll, my feeling is you wont cross 250) and expanding that to 1 million people in line for EB greencard.
This is not extrapolation, its a joke.
For the sake of the immigrant community, please dont drag CNN to Immigrationvoice.org to look at a poll that 200 people took of which 50 claim they would buy a house if they got a GC tomorrow. We all lose credibility if we make such statements.
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visitors dramatically increase, if there are newsworthy events that affects most of the people.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not to be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information to the Media, and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
thats even worse. you are taking a poll of 500 people (*IF* you get that many respondents to this poll, my feeling is you wont cross 250) and expanding that to 1 million people in line for EB greencard.
This is not extrapolation, its a joke.
For the sake of the immigrant community, please dont drag CNN to Immigrationvoice.org to look at a poll that 200 people took of which 50 claim they would buy a house if they got a GC tomorrow. We all lose credibility if we make such statements.
hot nice quotes on facebook. nice
cygent
03-17 04:32 PM
Hello all,
How do you determine if the category is EB2 or EB3? How can you find that out from which document?
Thanks!
How do you determine if the category is EB2 or EB3? How can you find that out from which document?
Thanks!
more...
house Quotes of the Masters:
mallu
02-15 02:08 PM
Some ROW folks here suddenly are saying that they like country cap quotas and there are against IV agenda.Why in the first place there should be a country cap on EB immigration ? Is it not the best and brightest in the world ? If there is FIFO implemented, how can a person in ROW will be effected by India and China as long as they meet the standards and file their petition on time.
Well said. Now if one starts to take the true diversity into account, how many chinese and indians as percentage of current US population ? ANd how many from some prominent countries of Europe ? Just curious.
Well said. Now if one starts to take the true diversity into account, how many chinese and indians as percentage of current US population ? ANd how many from some prominent countries of Europe ? Just curious.
tattoo Quotes for Facebook - The #1
msyedy
06-12 09:04 AM
our chances of getting some relief are better if infact CIR dies. if cir dies there might be a chance for SKIL bill.Even if SKIL is not taken up no bill is better than this CIR authored by ron hira aka kennedy, durbin and kyl.
Pitha (Shree)
I see what you are thinking, but EB3india is correct. In CIR or never.
I agree with him that we need to get a new stratergy to handle this.
I do not know why IV core has not spoken after this bill died. When CIR came to the Senate floor with all these restrictions, Logiclife mentioned something
like we should become illegals.
He must have been kidding but one could see the fact that the illegals were the ones who were getting the benefits.
I want to hear a similar statement from them, let us see........
Pitha (Shree)
I see what you are thinking, but EB3india is correct. In CIR or never.
I agree with him that we need to get a new stratergy to handle this.
I do not know why IV core has not spoken after this bill died. When CIR came to the Senate floor with all these restrictions, Logiclife mentioned something
like we should become illegals.
He must have been kidding but one could see the fact that the illegals were the ones who were getting the benefits.
I want to hear a similar statement from them, let us see........
more...
pictures Love Quotes for Facebook
maddipati1
01-30 01:39 PM
What I am not understanding is - why are they even looking at my case now? There are 4 years of applicants ahead of me, why cant the USCIS process those applications first?
I have a sickening feeling that this is going to become more and more common in this economic situation. There must a push from above to reduce the backlogs and if they cannot approve the cases they are going to find a way to deny them on some pretext or other.
When did you file ur 485, i mean exact date? If you filed very early during July'07 fiasco, probably they started pre-adjudication process based on the receipt date.
I have a sickening feeling that this is going to become more and more common in this economic situation. There must a push from above to reduce the backlogs and if they cannot approve the cases they are going to find a way to deny them on some pretext or other.
When did you file ur 485, i mean exact date? If you filed very early during July'07 fiasco, probably they started pre-adjudication process based on the receipt date.
dresses quotes for facebook status
payur
01-16 09:12 PM
Contributing $20/month
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
more...
makeup the quotes on facebook.
BlueSunD
02-27 09:47 PM
Thanks, a great place for tutorials on maya is http://www.learning-maya.com
girlfriend Spiritual Quotes on Facebook
prioritydate
12-20 04:31 PM
Have you been out of country anytime after this...??If yes then you are fine.
Once you re-enter US..all previous records will be cleared....!!!
Yes, I did. In fact, many times.
Once you re-enter US..all previous records will be cleared....!!!
Yes, I did. In fact, many times.
hairstyles quotes for facebook. nur
greencard_fever
07-18 04:42 PM
My calculations
Total pending cases : 400k (came from Ron Gotchers post)
Acceptance rate : 75%
Total applciation that can be approved : 300k
40% indian applicants (approvable) : 120k
40% EB2 India (approvable) : 48K (can range between 40k and 60k)
60% EB3 India (approvable) : 72k (can range between 60k and 90k)
References
Ron Gotchers post
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Good calculations but your numbers till what PD? is it upto date.. i mean who ever had LC approved till July-2007 or just PD's between April 2004 to Jun 2006?
Total pending cases : 400k (came from Ron Gotchers post)
Acceptance rate : 75%
Total applciation that can be approved : 300k
40% indian applicants (approvable) : 120k
40% EB2 India (approvable) : 48K (can range between 40k and 60k)
60% EB3 India (approvable) : 72k (can range between 60k and 90k)
References
Ron Gotchers post
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Good calculations but your numbers till what PD? is it upto date.. i mean who ever had LC approved till July-2007 or just PD's between April 2004 to Jun 2006?
immigrant2007
07-29 01:35 PM
Add CareFirst - Blue Cross Blue Shield
Legg Meson
All these companies take people on H1 and after an year of year an half they say they have changed policy and they can't file H1. They have big lawyers like M**** and R**** and those lawyers tell employers even if your employee is on 5th year and if you don't file GC (PERM) b4 365 days its alright.... we can send them out and re catpture time and all BS and ultimately employees suffer.... as they r in their 5th or some are in 6th year and are completely screwed up.
We should think of taking some legal actions...
advise forall my friends (ots free)
don't comprise on these things on job here:
GC
Salary
Position
Based on my experience here if you are good you will find your own way. Take everything in written or say no directly (it happens, no word of mouth)
Legg Meson
All these companies take people on H1 and after an year of year an half they say they have changed policy and they can't file H1. They have big lawyers like M**** and R**** and those lawyers tell employers even if your employee is on 5th year and if you don't file GC (PERM) b4 365 days its alright.... we can send them out and re catpture time and all BS and ultimately employees suffer.... as they r in their 5th or some are in 6th year and are completely screwed up.
We should think of taking some legal actions...
advise forall my friends (ots free)
don't comprise on these things on job here:
GC
Salary
Position
Based on my experience here if you are good you will find your own way. Take everything in written or say no directly (it happens, no word of mouth)
Jaime
09-10 12:35 PM
You want to start your own company and give jobs to Americans, but can't- Because you are on an H1-B, and you are not allowed to work for your own company if you start one, so you cannot support yourself.