kaisersose
02-15 11:18 AM
The mailroom clerks who open mail and process initial information are generally functioning a in a dumbed down mode.
USCIS is aware of their deficiences and hence have provided a solution. For such cases as yours, you should attach a cover letter clearly stating that this case is not to be opened by the mailroom people. It should be addressed to an IO who will do what's necessary.
It appears your lawyer did not do this. So make sure he does it right this time or find a different lawyer. You can also do it yourself by learning the procedure from others who went through the same pains.
USCIS is aware of their deficiences and hence have provided a solution. For such cases as yours, you should attach a cover letter clearly stating that this case is not to be opened by the mailroom people. It should be addressed to an IO who will do what's necessary.
It appears your lawyer did not do this. So make sure he does it right this time or find a different lawyer. You can also do it yourself by learning the procedure from others who went through the same pains.
wallpaper Sin Cara WWE
Sheila Danzig
07-25 10:26 AM
In all of the years that I have been doing evaluations I have seen only two cases where a GC had a NOIR (Notice of intent to revoke) for education reasons. Both had 3 year degrees. One case was several years ago and approved and the other was recent and just submitted.
Do you know the reason for your notice?
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
Do you know the reason for your notice?
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
Becks
02-23 09:45 PM
I think once the application is processed, they will mark the case as "pending visa number availability". July 30 means, they must have processed(hopefully) half of the July fiasco filers. We can expect LUDs on the cases.
If PD is not current, will USCIS process your I-485 application?
NSC indicates that they are processing I-485 applications with notice date of July 30, 3007. Does it mean they have processed all the I-485 applications received (ND) prior to that date even if PD was not current for all those applications?
If PD is not current, will USCIS process your I-485 application?
NSC indicates that they are processing I-485 applications with notice date of July 30, 3007. Does it mean they have processed all the I-485 applications received (ND) prior to that date even if PD was not current for all those applications?
2011 sin cara wwe without mask.
webpromo
03-27 12:36 PM
this is not a game , this happened really to me .I am Indian .They did not gave my passport back . They took my passport and send me to Bangalore Airport back .I know they don't have any right to hold any one's property that too a country citizenship passport.I am looking for an answer and advice , not question for a question
more...
gcformeornot
01-09 04:03 PM
Is this survey for only "those who lost a job while waiting for GC" or does it include anyone and everyone?
applies to general legal immigrant population.
applies to general legal immigrant population.
obviously
08-04 11:45 AM
Thanks for the 2 quick responses... albeit, opposite in recommendation :)
1. No need to file new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Any risks that we should think about?
2. File new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Apart from the additional cost and document preparation time, is there any other downside?
Funny thing is before this happened, I ran into a lot of threads suggesting interfiling was easy. Now that it is at the doorstep, there are quite a few questions and some confusion. I am thinking of getting a 20 min appt with the M law firm.
Appreciate any responses or assistance!!!!
Cheers!
I found the following info from Ron G's website, not sure that most of it applies in this case... since both I-140 have been approved and the later one under EB2 does reference the EB3 priority date.
When an I-140 is approved, your priority date is perfected. If the labor substitution I-140 has been approved, then you own that priority date forever. If you have to file the new I-140 before the old one is approved, you can later show the CIS the two priority dates (from the petition approval notices) and pick the better preference category and earlier priority date - even though they may be from different petitions. In this case, "later" means after the I-140 with the earlier priority date is approved. All you need to do is write to the CIS and enclose copies of the relevant approval notices and the I-485 receipt notice. What you should do is make sure that they consolidate both I-140 petitions into the same file. You don't need to file a new I-485, all you need to do in interfile your second I-140.
You should make a copy of the approval notice for the first I-140, a copy of the receipt notice for the second I-140, and the write a letter to the CIS, asking them to give your second I-140 the priority date established by the first. You can cite the regulatory authority found HERE. (Refer text below) Send it to the correspondence address shown in the lower left portion of the receipt notice.
You can upgrade your preference classification while staying with the same employer, but you will need a new job. Attempting to use the same job with different minimum qualifications will call into question the legitimacy of the original labor certification. If the second I-140 is denied, it will have no effect on the first. There shouldn't be any difficulty porting in an LC substitution situation.
The CIS regulations at 8 CFR 204.5(e) provides for the retention of a previously established priority date under the circumstances described below:
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. --
A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
1. No need to file new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Any risks that we should think about?
2. File new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Apart from the additional cost and document preparation time, is there any other downside?
Funny thing is before this happened, I ran into a lot of threads suggesting interfiling was easy. Now that it is at the doorstep, there are quite a few questions and some confusion. I am thinking of getting a 20 min appt with the M law firm.
Appreciate any responses or assistance!!!!
Cheers!
I found the following info from Ron G's website, not sure that most of it applies in this case... since both I-140 have been approved and the later one under EB2 does reference the EB3 priority date.
When an I-140 is approved, your priority date is perfected. If the labor substitution I-140 has been approved, then you own that priority date forever. If you have to file the new I-140 before the old one is approved, you can later show the CIS the two priority dates (from the petition approval notices) and pick the better preference category and earlier priority date - even though they may be from different petitions. In this case, "later" means after the I-140 with the earlier priority date is approved. All you need to do is write to the CIS and enclose copies of the relevant approval notices and the I-485 receipt notice. What you should do is make sure that they consolidate both I-140 petitions into the same file. You don't need to file a new I-485, all you need to do in interfile your second I-140.
You should make a copy of the approval notice for the first I-140, a copy of the receipt notice for the second I-140, and the write a letter to the CIS, asking them to give your second I-140 the priority date established by the first. You can cite the regulatory authority found HERE. (Refer text below) Send it to the correspondence address shown in the lower left portion of the receipt notice.
You can upgrade your preference classification while staying with the same employer, but you will need a new job. Attempting to use the same job with different minimum qualifications will call into question the legitimacy of the original labor certification. If the second I-140 is denied, it will have no effect on the first. There shouldn't be any difficulty porting in an LC substitution situation.
The CIS regulations at 8 CFR 204.5(e) provides for the retention of a previously established priority date under the circumstances described below:
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. --
A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
more...
makemygc
07-20 03:28 PM
I sent in form G-325 for both me and my wife along with my I-485 instead of the G-325A as required on I-485 instructions by oversight. What do you guys recommend I do? Should I send in a new application or just send in the G-325A form with a letter stating the issue? Please help.
Yes, it's definitely a issue. Talk to your lawyer immediately.
Even though the form looks similar, G-325A requires 4 copies where G-325 has only 2 copies. I was almost about to make the same mistake.
Yes, it's definitely a issue. Talk to your lawyer immediately.
Even though the form looks similar, G-325A requires 4 copies where G-325 has only 2 copies. I was almost about to make the same mistake.
2010 sin cara wwe without mask.
n2b
07-17 02:12 PM
can you please help me link the connection between my request and my contribution to IV? I fail to undersand your point!
given that u have just joined the group, let me say welcome aboard...
u made a wise decision to join this effort.. however regretfully I beg to defer , for you to be too quick to ask questions or updates and be more patient..
please aks yourself..what did u do for IV....what can u expect...
if u are a very active member and did contribute to IV, please accept my apologies
given that u have just joined the group, let me say welcome aboard...
u made a wise decision to join this effort.. however regretfully I beg to defer , for you to be too quick to ask questions or updates and be more patient..
please aks yourself..what did u do for IV....what can u expect...
if u are a very active member and did contribute to IV, please accept my apologies
more...
Curious_Techie
09-30 12:42 PM
Does the online status change if an RFE is issued? or we just receive the RFE via Postal mail ?
hair sin cara wwe wiki. wwe sin
girishvar
09-17 07:25 PM
Being a consular processing 6 months is a goog time. If you are already working for your existing employer for more than 6 months, even on H1 then you can take a risk. Basically you need to prove an intent. No body expects anyone needs to be a slave to any employer.
more...
Maverick1
11-13 04:43 PM
Hi Guys,
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
What is your PD and country ? A lot depends on these two factors. Is this the status against your I485 ? or 131 ?
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
What is your PD and country ? A lot depends on these two factors. Is this the status against your I485 ? or 131 ?
hot WWE Sin Cara
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
house sin cara wwe logo. from sin
psam
08-26 04:17 PM
Hello all,
It appears that my green card is lost in mail.
My spouse received her 10 days back. Our 485 was approved on same day, so I think mine must be lost.
I will wait for another couple of days for it to appear. Meanwhile I had few questions
1. What is the process to getting a duplicate?
2. If I just get GC stamped on my passport, will I be able to transit from Paris or London airport?
It appears that my green card is lost in mail.
My spouse received her 10 days back. Our 485 was approved on same day, so I think mine must be lost.
I will wait for another couple of days for it to appear. Meanwhile I had few questions
1. What is the process to getting a duplicate?
2. If I just get GC stamped on my passport, will I be able to transit from Paris or London airport?
tattoo sin cara wwe wrestler. sin
learning01
04-06 10:11 PM
There is no serious effort by the republicans. They are fractured, divided, into groups. They have no motivation to get this comprehensive bill passed. I have been observing the tactics and attitudes of these republican senators and democratic senators. I am more shocked by the game of one-upmanship on the part of Frist, Kyl, Cornyn, Craig. I don't see rhyme or reason in their sppeches. The bill has no life for the next 3 weeks.
i am sorry..i couldnt follow todays proceedings..whn i cam to iv site in the evening..everyone says bill is dead
whn i went to immigration-law.com, they say the following
cud someone tell me which one is true??????????
We reported earlier the Senate Republican Members Agreement last night. Today, the Democratic Minority Leader and other Democractic leaders agreed to the proposal, turning the Republican agreement into the Bi-Partisan Agreement. This dramatic break-through opens a door to the possibility of passing the Senate version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2454, as amended before this week is over and before the Congress goes into the recess next two weeks.
The development is accompanied by three other developments:
President released statement supporting the bi-partisan agreement;
Senate rejected the Democrat's motion to cloture for the Specter amendments to S.2454;
Senate also relected the Republican Kyl' motion for his amendments.
Now we see the light at the end of the tunnel!!
i am sorry..i couldnt follow todays proceedings..whn i cam to iv site in the evening..everyone says bill is dead
whn i went to immigration-law.com, they say the following
cud someone tell me which one is true??????????
We reported earlier the Senate Republican Members Agreement last night. Today, the Democratic Minority Leader and other Democractic leaders agreed to the proposal, turning the Republican agreement into the Bi-Partisan Agreement. This dramatic break-through opens a door to the possibility of passing the Senate version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2454, as amended before this week is over and before the Congress goes into the recess next two weeks.
The development is accompanied by three other developments:
President released statement supporting the bi-partisan agreement;
Senate rejected the Democrat's motion to cloture for the Specter amendments to S.2454;
Senate also relected the Republican Kyl' motion for his amendments.
Now we see the light at the end of the tunnel!!
more...
pictures sin cara wwe wrestler. sin cara wwe wrestler. sin cara wwe wrestler.
abhijitp
08-22 03:10 PM
I know some of you will be attending the Rally in DC on Sep 18th.
But most wont be attending the rally in DC on the 18th. Wouldnt it be good if the people who are not able to attend the DC rally conduct a rally in Texas at the same day.
This way, there will be a multi pronged effect. In fact, it would have an even greater effect if simultaneous rallies are held in other places too. Like
West Coast (Bay area )
Midwest (Chicago)
Texas (one of the major cities - Dallas, Austin or Houston)
Think of all the local media attention this gets & also the ripple effect into national media.
Any thoughts ??
If you are anyways planning to rally, you will need a day off, so why not spend it in DC? I strongly agree with Paskal in that small rallies would dilute the impact of the DC rally!
If you can take a day off, please attend the DC rally. Go here and tell us how we can help you with logistics.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
Thanks
But most wont be attending the rally in DC on the 18th. Wouldnt it be good if the people who are not able to attend the DC rally conduct a rally in Texas at the same day.
This way, there will be a multi pronged effect. In fact, it would have an even greater effect if simultaneous rallies are held in other places too. Like
West Coast (Bay area )
Midwest (Chicago)
Texas (one of the major cities - Dallas, Austin or Houston)
Think of all the local media attention this gets & also the ripple effect into national media.
Any thoughts ??
If you are anyways planning to rally, you will need a day off, so why not spend it in DC? I strongly agree with Paskal in that small rallies would dilute the impact of the DC rally!
If you can take a day off, please attend the DC rally. Go here and tell us how we can help you with logistics.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
Thanks
dresses sin cara wwe logo. sin cara
ksircar
10-13 11:20 AM
:confused:
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
There are so many things in life that doesn't make sense, but still we accept all those unacceptable things. Friend, consider yourself lucky if you get your EAD card (with all correct info. on the card) in 90 days.
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
There are so many things in life that doesn't make sense, but still we accept all those unacceptable things. Friend, consider yourself lucky if you get your EAD card (with all correct info. on the card) in 90 days.
more...
makeup sin cara wwe mask. sin cara
jkays94
04-17 10:37 PM
This is what I got to share with my friends from the site after I signed the petition :
Did You Hear What Happened in Washington?
Dear Friend,
As you may have heard in the news, Senator Kennedy has been at the forefront of immigration reform; he's built a bipartisan coalition around a tough but fair approach that is rapidly gaining popular support among Americans.
Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that immigrants who have lived in the country for a certain period of time should be allowed to go through the process of obtaining citizenship. But the out-of-touch Republican leadership is pushing back and many hope to make these would-be citizens felons.
I've added my signature of support to Senator Kennedy's efforts to protect the American worker. Will you join me?
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
I'm standing with Senator Kennedy, and fighting to ensure that our country values hard work. I hope you will too.
Thank you!
Did You Hear What Happened in Washington?
Dear Friend,
As you may have heard in the news, Senator Kennedy has been at the forefront of immigration reform; he's built a bipartisan coalition around a tough but fair approach that is rapidly gaining popular support among Americans.
Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that immigrants who have lived in the country for a certain period of time should be allowed to go through the process of obtaining citizenship. But the out-of-touch Republican leadership is pushing back and many hope to make these would-be citizens felons.
I've added my signature of support to Senator Kennedy's efforts to protect the American worker. Will you join me?
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
I'm standing with Senator Kennedy, and fighting to ensure that our country values hard work. I hope you will too.
Thank you!
girlfriend sin cara wwe wrestler. sin
abhijitp
07-08 02:06 PM
I'm sorry but why he did not say IV... i'm not trying to offened anybody people from all over are sending as well. it would make it better if he said the legal immigrant community
Given that (I believe) he regularly visits IV and gets information from here, but never wants to give IV the credit for it.
Given that (I believe) he regularly visits IV and gets information from here, but never wants to give IV the credit for it.
hairstyles sin cara wwe logo. sin cara
psaxena
06-10 05:39 PM
wow thats a news.. as your alias is "vivid" write something "different"(vividh) which we dun know.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
mita
12-04 04:04 PM
It was in Breaking News.....
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Tshelar
07-23 09:03 AM
I would always recommend choosing Career over GC. I am guessing you'll are a young couple. Most of us take risk of jumping jobs and carriers before we are married or before one starts a family. Believe me once you start a family and are raising kids all your drive to look for better prospect will start diminishing. You will be happy with you a 9 to 5 job.
So my 2 cents go for a better career now.
I understand it is a tough call but I am sure you will make a right one and whatever happens in future do not repent on your decision as future is unpredictable and one can only make decisions based on the current facts.
So my 2 cents go for a better career now.
I understand it is a tough call but I am sure you will make a right one and whatever happens in future do not repent on your decision as future is unpredictable and one can only make decisions based on the current facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment