americandesi
09-12 01:30 PM
Your attoney should be able to defend your case based on you salary more than PW.
The GC process is for future employement, your bosses ability to pay exists since he has paid you more salary than PW.
Your employer may be making loss every year, but he is paying you more than PW. Now your salary in itself is an expense for employer, so the fact that he is paying you may be making his financials look a little weak in term of profit loss.
Look at other threads on RFE issues, and talk to your lawyer.
I think you are fine.
When it comes to "employment of beneficiary" in proving ability to pay, the employer should prove that he had paid the proffered wage from the time PD is established continuing until the beneficiary obtains permanent residence.
It doesn�t matter if he�s getting paid the proffered wage now. The employer should prove the same from the time PD is established.
The GC process is for future employement, your bosses ability to pay exists since he has paid you more salary than PW.
Your employer may be making loss every year, but he is paying you more than PW. Now your salary in itself is an expense for employer, so the fact that he is paying you may be making his financials look a little weak in term of profit loss.
Look at other threads on RFE issues, and talk to your lawyer.
I think you are fine.
When it comes to "employment of beneficiary" in proving ability to pay, the employer should prove that he had paid the proffered wage from the time PD is established continuing until the beneficiary obtains permanent residence.
It doesn�t matter if he�s getting paid the proffered wage now. The employer should prove the same from the time PD is established.
wallpaper vehicle gmac insurance is
gagbag
07-11 12:53 PM
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0710-lee.shtm
Is Money Behind USCIS Move To Have Department Of State Take Unprecedented Action To "Update" July Visa Chart?
by Alan Lee, Esq.
Was the Department of State's unprecedented action on July 2, 2007, issuing an "Update on July Visa Availability" closing off visa availability for the rest of the fiscal year for employment based cases and essentially gutting its July visa bulletin (which opened the employment based categories EB-1 through EB-3 for adjustment of status applications) all about the money with U.S.C.I.S. in the role of culprit? We believe the answer unfortunately is "yes" and reflects U.S.C.I.S.'s desperate desire to grab its huge future fee increase from individuals that it saw slipping through its fingers. U.S.C.I.S. undoubtedly perceived its expected windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars through its outlandish July 30th increase in fees for petitions and applications (average increase 66%) threatened by the July visa chart which would allow many employment based individuals and their families to beat the fee increases. A typical family of four (husband, wife, child aged 16 and the other 12) applying for adjustment of status currently pays $1,605 to U.S.C.I.S. (including I-140 charge). That same family on and after July 30th would pay $4,105, an increase of $2,500, or 255%. If one multiplies those figures by at least 100,000 ( $250 million difference),[1] one can imagine the explosive temper of top U.S.C.I.S. officials when they saw the Visa Office July chart. U.S.C.I.S. has made no bones that it is depending upon the fee increases to fund its proposed systems and structures for the 21st century.
The Visa Office made it clear through the updating of the visa bulletin that its update was only because of U.S.C.I.S. action using the phrases "The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month....", and "As a result of this unexpected action....." The Visa Office cited these efforts as resulting in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers. It is also clear that the Visa Office had no wish to defend U.S.C.I.S. when it issued its update on July 2nd. Whether it retains its stance in the future of washing its hands and pointing the finger at U.S.C.I.S. remains to be seen in light of probable Administration pressure to spin the story in a more positive light to the government as this Administration has exhibited a continual attitude of "soaking" immigrants, legal or otherwise ( $25,000+ for a family of four to immigrate under the recent fallen Senate bill ( See our article, "$10,000 Required For Earned Legalization and Adjustment Under the Secure Borders, Employment Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act", http://www.alanleelaw.com/english/articles/a2007-05-26.htm), which figure was modified from the earlier Administration proposal of $82,000+ ( See our article, "Mr. Lee's Comment to March 28, 2007 White House Immigration Reform Proposal - Z Visas", http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2007,0403.shtm in "LETTERS" section), the passed amendment to S. 1639 raising H-1B surcharge fees to $5,000 on top of the fraud ($500) and filing ($190) fees, and the rapacious July 30th U.S.C.I.S. fee increase). The author recalls his telephone conversation with Charlie Oppenheim, the chief of immigrant visa control and reporting, Visa Office, in December 2004 concerning the 101,000 "pool numbers", in which Mr. Oppenheim gave no credence to U.S.C.I.S. figures that the agency had cleared over 100,000 cases (including dependents) between April and November. (The exact differential was 115,000 cases, a rate of about 16,400 per month). The author has no knowledge of the exact number of cases that U.S.C.I.S. claimed to close in June for the State Department to announce that almost 60,000 employment numbers were used (employment based immigrant visa numbers are also requested by U.S. consulates and embassies), but notes that the vast majority of employment based cases are with aliens in the States who adjust status here rather than consular processing their cases. If U.S.C.I.S. claimed to clear anywhere in the area of 40,000-50,000 cases last month, that number for one month is difficult if not incredulous to believe, and if true would have involved massive shifts of U.S.C.I.S. personnel from other responsibilities to comb through and adjudicate all files of persons eligible to immigrate through employment, or less than careful consideration of the cases. Hopefully the agency was not in such a desperate state as to cut corners to endanger our national security if it was the latter case.
The facts and the legality of U.S.C.I.S.'s actions will undoubtedly be the subject of multiple lawsuits. However this turns out, the agency and the Administration will wind up with less respect than before. This Administration needs all the good publicity that it can muster in light of its unpopular Iraq war and recent actions freeing Scooter Libby (not even Paris Hilton avoided imprisonment) and supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and creating further public mistrust of the justice system even after confirmation that he and other White House aides politicized the selection of United States Attorneys. Unless U.S.C.I.S. and the Visa Office can change course, this episode will unfortunately become a black eye to all parties as further facts emerge in the coming days.
Is Money Behind USCIS Move To Have Department Of State Take Unprecedented Action To "Update" July Visa Chart?
by Alan Lee, Esq.
Was the Department of State's unprecedented action on July 2, 2007, issuing an "Update on July Visa Availability" closing off visa availability for the rest of the fiscal year for employment based cases and essentially gutting its July visa bulletin (which opened the employment based categories EB-1 through EB-3 for adjustment of status applications) all about the money with U.S.C.I.S. in the role of culprit? We believe the answer unfortunately is "yes" and reflects U.S.C.I.S.'s desperate desire to grab its huge future fee increase from individuals that it saw slipping through its fingers. U.S.C.I.S. undoubtedly perceived its expected windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars through its outlandish July 30th increase in fees for petitions and applications (average increase 66%) threatened by the July visa chart which would allow many employment based individuals and their families to beat the fee increases. A typical family of four (husband, wife, child aged 16 and the other 12) applying for adjustment of status currently pays $1,605 to U.S.C.I.S. (including I-140 charge). That same family on and after July 30th would pay $4,105, an increase of $2,500, or 255%. If one multiplies those figures by at least 100,000 ( $250 million difference),[1] one can imagine the explosive temper of top U.S.C.I.S. officials when they saw the Visa Office July chart. U.S.C.I.S. has made no bones that it is depending upon the fee increases to fund its proposed systems and structures for the 21st century.
The Visa Office made it clear through the updating of the visa bulletin that its update was only because of U.S.C.I.S. action using the phrases "The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month....", and "As a result of this unexpected action....." The Visa Office cited these efforts as resulting in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers. It is also clear that the Visa Office had no wish to defend U.S.C.I.S. when it issued its update on July 2nd. Whether it retains its stance in the future of washing its hands and pointing the finger at U.S.C.I.S. remains to be seen in light of probable Administration pressure to spin the story in a more positive light to the government as this Administration has exhibited a continual attitude of "soaking" immigrants, legal or otherwise ( $25,000+ for a family of four to immigrate under the recent fallen Senate bill ( See our article, "$10,000 Required For Earned Legalization and Adjustment Under the Secure Borders, Employment Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act", http://www.alanleelaw.com/english/articles/a2007-05-26.htm), which figure was modified from the earlier Administration proposal of $82,000+ ( See our article, "Mr. Lee's Comment to March 28, 2007 White House Immigration Reform Proposal - Z Visas", http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2007,0403.shtm in "LETTERS" section), the passed amendment to S. 1639 raising H-1B surcharge fees to $5,000 on top of the fraud ($500) and filing ($190) fees, and the rapacious July 30th U.S.C.I.S. fee increase). The author recalls his telephone conversation with Charlie Oppenheim, the chief of immigrant visa control and reporting, Visa Office, in December 2004 concerning the 101,000 "pool numbers", in which Mr. Oppenheim gave no credence to U.S.C.I.S. figures that the agency had cleared over 100,000 cases (including dependents) between April and November. (The exact differential was 115,000 cases, a rate of about 16,400 per month). The author has no knowledge of the exact number of cases that U.S.C.I.S. claimed to close in June for the State Department to announce that almost 60,000 employment numbers were used (employment based immigrant visa numbers are also requested by U.S. consulates and embassies), but notes that the vast majority of employment based cases are with aliens in the States who adjust status here rather than consular processing their cases. If U.S.C.I.S. claimed to clear anywhere in the area of 40,000-50,000 cases last month, that number for one month is difficult if not incredulous to believe, and if true would have involved massive shifts of U.S.C.I.S. personnel from other responsibilities to comb through and adjudicate all files of persons eligible to immigrate through employment, or less than careful consideration of the cases. Hopefully the agency was not in such a desperate state as to cut corners to endanger our national security if it was the latter case.
The facts and the legality of U.S.C.I.S.'s actions will undoubtedly be the subject of multiple lawsuits. However this turns out, the agency and the Administration will wind up with less respect than before. This Administration needs all the good publicity that it can muster in light of its unpopular Iraq war and recent actions freeing Scooter Libby (not even Paris Hilton avoided imprisonment) and supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and creating further public mistrust of the justice system even after confirmation that he and other White House aides politicized the selection of United States Attorneys. Unless U.S.C.I.S. and the Visa Office can change course, this episode will unfortunately become a black eye to all parties as further facts emerge in the coming days.
gc28262
04-27 10:02 AM
http://www.moneycontrol.com/mccode/news/article/news_article.php?autono=394887&special=mkt_topnews
2011 quot;gmac insurance car sales
H1B-GC
02-13 03:40 PM
Core : keep up the goog Work.
more...
Macaca
11-14 02:29 PM
... work with the congressmen and senators.
What will you do if you have convinced ALL lawmakers but they still do not vote for you because of public opposition generated by Lou DoGGS? The FACT (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=98473&postcount=595) (NOT opinion) on immigration: In evident pain and remorse, a Republican Senator confessed to a Hispanic group from Maryland that his vote to kill immigration reform was �a profile in political cowardice.�.
Todays New York's Id (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=194883&postcount=1455) example:
Mr. Spitzer�s decision to abandon his plan comes as a poll released Tuesday by Siena College found that seven in 10 New York voters who had heard about it � and more than 80 percent of the 625 registered voters polled had � opposed it. It also found that for the first time, more people viewed the governor unfavorably than favorably.
The governor and his aides said that they were not reacting to the slumping poll numbers, but acting pragmatically. That the dispute had even tripped up Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who stumbled to answer a question about it in a presidential debate, �was symptomatic of where we were,� he said.
�The issue was gaining traction not based on thoughtful discourse, but based on sound bites and less than careful analysis,� he added.
What will you do if you have convinced ALL lawmakers but they still do not vote for you because of public opposition generated by Lou DoGGS? The FACT (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=98473&postcount=595) (NOT opinion) on immigration: In evident pain and remorse, a Republican Senator confessed to a Hispanic group from Maryland that his vote to kill immigration reform was �a profile in political cowardice.�.
Todays New York's Id (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=194883&postcount=1455) example:
Mr. Spitzer�s decision to abandon his plan comes as a poll released Tuesday by Siena College found that seven in 10 New York voters who had heard about it � and more than 80 percent of the 625 registered voters polled had � opposed it. It also found that for the first time, more people viewed the governor unfavorably than favorably.
The governor and his aides said that they were not reacting to the slumping poll numbers, but acting pragmatically. That the dispute had even tripped up Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who stumbled to answer a question about it in a presidential debate, �was symptomatic of where we were,� he said.
�The issue was gaining traction not based on thoughtful discourse, but based on sound bites and less than careful analysis,� he added.
ashshef
09-13 02:56 PM
Hi core members,
I am willing to play a more active part in this if you can utilise me in anyway. I live in Redmond WA and my wife works in a major software company. I will be completing my 6 years on H1 early next month so I should have plenty of time on my hands. I was working full time in a processor company as a Hardware Design Engineer, most of these 6 years..but unfortunately my GC with them wasn't going anywhere so we decided to move from Austin to Seattle a year and a half back. We didn't envision the retro problem in the Eb2 category and just missed the bus as our PERM filing(from my wife's employer) was a tad too late. My H1 was initially expiring in June so I thought it was too late to apply last year when I saw the retro in EB2. I wish I had applied for my GC somewhere at that stage as I was able to recapture some time on my H and also the I140 filings seem to be a lot quicker this year.
But whats gone is gone....truth of the matter is that I will have to wait for the backlog to clear up...which could take years without legislation.
I would like to play a more active role with trying to garner support for the Skill bill, so please let me know if I can help with anything.
Regards
I am willing to play a more active part in this if you can utilise me in anyway. I live in Redmond WA and my wife works in a major software company. I will be completing my 6 years on H1 early next month so I should have plenty of time on my hands. I was working full time in a processor company as a Hardware Design Engineer, most of these 6 years..but unfortunately my GC with them wasn't going anywhere so we decided to move from Austin to Seattle a year and a half back. We didn't envision the retro problem in the Eb2 category and just missed the bus as our PERM filing(from my wife's employer) was a tad too late. My H1 was initially expiring in June so I thought it was too late to apply last year when I saw the retro in EB2. I wish I had applied for my GC somewhere at that stage as I was able to recapture some time on my H and also the I140 filings seem to be a lot quicker this year.
But whats gone is gone....truth of the matter is that I will have to wait for the backlog to clear up...which could take years without legislation.
I would like to play a more active role with trying to garner support for the Skill bill, so please let me know if I can help with anything.
Regards
more...
Leo
07-12 10:21 AM
I smell a huge conspiracy behind all this USCIS, DOS mess. I believe the only reason they did is to make legal immigrants life miserable. They did all this so they waste EB visa numbers again this year and make legals wait for years before they get LPR. By the time the an individual numbers comes for the green card some of them might become illegals and some after years of frustion have gone back home.
2010 gmac insurance
Raji
07-17 08:23 PM
As you are aware there is alot going on right now. The administration is talking about CIR.
Lots of bills with small provisions get talked up or introduced. In fact that happens every year if you look back. We keep an eye on what's moving and where the effort is needed. We do not want to waste our resources and effort if something may end up simply being a placeholder or a position statement.
In a nutshell, there will be fax campaign when we are advised (by lawmakers, lobbyists and friendly advocacy groups among others) and we determine that it is needed and will be effective.
Thanks for the response Paskal. However I still do not underststand why IV is not encouraging everyone to send faxes and register their support via the AILA site. As I have understood AILA has been a leader in this effort for immigration {see July 2007}. If you are trying to say that the interests of AILA and IV are not exactly the same - that is to be expected - no 2 organizations can ever be the same - BUT - surely we can come together to form and pursue some strategic interests. I see that with regard to these bills IV and AILA interests meet. Further if readers @ IV send messages via AILA Action Alert then IV resources can be saved to follow the path that you have described above.
Finally, the bill may be a placeholder or position statement, but in the end we need to demonstrate the numbers - highlighting this bill may eventually lead to some worthwhile convergence in the CIR - I think no opportunity need be lost in this process and the more we highlight our position and condition the more visibility we get.
Regards!
Raji
Lots of bills with small provisions get talked up or introduced. In fact that happens every year if you look back. We keep an eye on what's moving and where the effort is needed. We do not want to waste our resources and effort if something may end up simply being a placeholder or a position statement.
In a nutshell, there will be fax campaign when we are advised (by lawmakers, lobbyists and friendly advocacy groups among others) and we determine that it is needed and will be effective.
Thanks for the response Paskal. However I still do not underststand why IV is not encouraging everyone to send faxes and register their support via the AILA site. As I have understood AILA has been a leader in this effort for immigration {see July 2007}. If you are trying to say that the interests of AILA and IV are not exactly the same - that is to be expected - no 2 organizations can ever be the same - BUT - surely we can come together to form and pursue some strategic interests. I see that with regard to these bills IV and AILA interests meet. Further if readers @ IV send messages via AILA Action Alert then IV resources can be saved to follow the path that you have described above.
Finally, the bill may be a placeholder or position statement, but in the end we need to demonstrate the numbers - highlighting this bill may eventually lead to some worthwhile convergence in the CIR - I think no opportunity need be lost in this process and the more we highlight our position and condition the more visibility we get.
Regards!
Raji
more...
grupak
01-30 05:16 PM
Let us try to keep the question atleast in the top10 until the poll closes. This is a very good chance to bring our issue to a wide audience.
I think the link provided here take to the page where questions are not sorted by either popularity or most recent ( which I assumed initially). I might be wrong.
I think the link provided here take to the page where questions are not sorted by either popularity or most recent ( which I assumed initially). I might be wrong.
hair the help of gmac insurance
gneerajg
10-24 03:37 PM
Thanks for the reply and it is not an subsitute it is an original case .so your suggesting that my PD should be May 2007 instead of April 2001. But the problem is that attorney filed the labor certification in 2001 without obtaining the PW and now the PW has come up 71656/- so there is a huge gap what I was getting in 2001 and then we requested PW for the last years from 2001 onwards and now they are telling that they can not do it also if we download the PW from the archives it is still much more than the PW send by DOL. so is there any way to get the PW for those years in back. I hired a new and very capable attorney but what he is suggesting that if we could the PW for 2001 what we applied in application then it is a piece of cake. My occupational code is 15-1031 and it I filed from California, LA county. I will really appreciate for your guidance and suggestion
Neeraj
40k+ in 2006
35k+ in 2005
33k+ in 2004
EB-3 PD 2001
Filed I-140 & I-485 on May 5,2007
Neeraj
40k+ in 2006
35k+ in 2005
33k+ in 2004
EB-3 PD 2001
Filed I-140 & I-485 on May 5,2007
more...
coopheal
04-21 02:06 PM
Sent another one and its about that Moron snathan
:p
You are being warned. mend your ways otherwise be prepared for ban.
:p
You are being warned. mend your ways otherwise be prepared for ban.
hot to the 2008 GMAC Insurance
logiclife
05-24 01:28 PM
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199701809
Throwing money at scholarships and education incentives dont make people choose a profession they dont like. If they want to be lawyers and doctors and managers, they wont force themselves to go for tech degrees and diplomas just because they get thousands of dollars in scholarships.
People in this country are lucky enough to go for professions they like to do and they would pay money to get it rather than look for discounts on tech degrees.
Even if they do get tech degrees, they wont work in that profession.
So rather than create bogus incentives, why not just impose higher taxes on H1B earning and give that money free to former US citizen computer "Programmers" and cut to the chase rather than create training and education incentives they will never respond to.
This amendment is for placating US citizens computer "Programmers" and "Progammer's" guild.
Well, keep doing that.
See you all in Bangalore and Shanghai.
Throwing money at scholarships and education incentives dont make people choose a profession they dont like. If they want to be lawyers and doctors and managers, they wont force themselves to go for tech degrees and diplomas just because they get thousands of dollars in scholarships.
People in this country are lucky enough to go for professions they like to do and they would pay money to get it rather than look for discounts on tech degrees.
Even if they do get tech degrees, they wont work in that profession.
So rather than create bogus incentives, why not just impose higher taxes on H1B earning and give that money free to former US citizen computer "Programmers" and cut to the chase rather than create training and education incentives they will never respond to.
This amendment is for placating US citizens computer "Programmers" and "Progammer's" guild.
Well, keep doing that.
See you all in Bangalore and Shanghai.
more...
house GMAC Insurance
gc28262
04-27 10:02 AM
http://www.moneycontrol.com/mccode/news/article/news_article.php?autono=394887&special=mkt_topnews
tattoo GMAC Insurance National
arihant
04-07 01:32 PM
I have a thought! How about fund raising events....members with some talent can really help here...hold an event (such as a concert...i have heard of some talented classical singers or classical dance performers from India giving concerts for a fee of a few thousand dollars in university auditoriums or other cultural venues) with all proceeds going to IV, or sell some services (such as IT services, accounting services, or any other high-skill talent that might otherwise cost a lot), etc. Say, someone wants to sell something on eBay, how abolut selling it and donating the proceeds to eBay. This way, we might be able to contribute more funds by performing some activities that we already have the talent for.
come on people, among such qualified and educated folks as the members of this organization, can we not find some skill in us that can be used to raised some funds?
What do people think?
come on people, among such qualified and educated folks as the members of this organization, can we not find some skill in us that can be used to raised some funds?
What do people think?
more...
pictures GMAC Insurance administered
waitingGC
01-30 08:34 AM
01/29/2007: Special Alert: DOL Submitted "Final" Regulation of Substitution Elimination Rule to OMB on 01/26/2007
* Since this is a final rule, upon approval by OMB, the elimination of substitution and 45-day validity of certified labor certification will be triggered. Take this message as a very special alert! This rule will not only eliminate substitutition on the OMB approval and release in the Federal Register but also kill the certified labor certification unless it is used within 45 days from the date of certification! Please stay tuned to this web site reporting.
* The planned implementation day appears to be April 2007. But it can be earlier!
Will OMB approve this rule? What is OMB?
* Since this is a final rule, upon approval by OMB, the elimination of substitution and 45-day validity of certified labor certification will be triggered. Take this message as a very special alert! This rule will not only eliminate substitutition on the OMB approval and release in the Federal Register but also kill the certified labor certification unless it is used within 45 days from the date of certification! Please stay tuned to this web site reporting.
* The planned implementation day appears to be April 2007. But it can be earlier!
Will OMB approve this rule? What is OMB?
dresses GMAC Insurance National
sanjay
09-23 06:59 PM
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=286606 :mad::mad:
Well, I don't agree to this guys views, but must agree that this RED dot system is too annoying and more are the -ve comments.
But, who cares !!!
Well, I don't agree to this guys views, but must agree that this RED dot system is too annoying and more are the -ve comments.
But, who cares !!!
more...
makeup GMAC Insurance Reveals Ways
anzerraja
07-19 04:34 PM
Please reply. What are the steps involved in getting this done.
---
Can someone from the core tell us if there is a possibility that we can request IV to reimburse Aman and other core members for their past expenses and institute a prosess for expense reimbursement going forward
---
Can someone from the core tell us if there is a possibility that we can request IV to reimburse Aman and other core members for their past expenses and institute a prosess for expense reimbursement going forward
girlfriend GMAC Insurance
santb1975
01-31 08:49 AM
^^^
hairstyles GMAC Insurance
Macaca
11-12 01:11 PM
Grassley Is Off the Mark (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119465330149488684.html) Wall Street Journal, Nov 10, 2007
Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) apparently didn't read your "The Grassley Visa Tax "editorial of Nov. 2 ("Investing in America, Making Things Worse," letters to the editor, Nov. 8). His first two paragraphs made statements that were blatantly false. Spoken like a true politician.
No successful business hires an H-1B visa holder just to fire an American worker. Because of the shortage of trained and competent workers, high tech workers are paid the prevailing wage rates. Sen. Grassley is overlooking the term of the H-1B visas. No business wants to train a worker who will leave in a short time. Successful businesses are built on the expertise of long term experienced workers. H-1B workers are attractive because there are not skilled Americans available.
Sen. Grassley should consider the interests of the country as a whole instead of pandering to special interests and he should consider legislation to improve the performance of Americans instead of making false accusations to polish his image.
Claude Rumsey
Las Vegas
Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) apparently didn't read your "The Grassley Visa Tax "editorial of Nov. 2 ("Investing in America, Making Things Worse," letters to the editor, Nov. 8). His first two paragraphs made statements that were blatantly false. Spoken like a true politician.
No successful business hires an H-1B visa holder just to fire an American worker. Because of the shortage of trained and competent workers, high tech workers are paid the prevailing wage rates. Sen. Grassley is overlooking the term of the H-1B visas. No business wants to train a worker who will leave in a short time. Successful businesses are built on the expertise of long term experienced workers. H-1B workers are attractive because there are not skilled Americans available.
Sen. Grassley should consider the interests of the country as a whole instead of pandering to special interests and he should consider legislation to improve the performance of Americans instead of making false accusations to polish his image.
Claude Rumsey
Las Vegas
wawa
10-02 12:41 PM
Hi smartboy75/prince7,
Any updates?
I checked my former approved H1Bs and found:
1) The Sept. 2000 approved H1B with LUD of June 2007
2) The Feb.2003 approved H1B with LUD 0f April 2006
For both cases, it seems the status is the same as when it was approved in Sept. 2000 and Feb. 2003, nothing new. Maybe these are automatic updates by the computer system.
Any updates?
I checked my former approved H1Bs and found:
1) The Sept. 2000 approved H1B with LUD of June 2007
2) The Feb.2003 approved H1B with LUD 0f April 2006
For both cases, it seems the status is the same as when it was approved in Sept. 2000 and Feb. 2003, nothing new. Maybe these are automatic updates by the computer system.
santb1975
12-03 03:01 PM
But is this ok to do?
Is this a legal option for a non profit? If so, I suggest we go for it!
Here is one scheme I have been thinking about:
1. Every week members donate any amount they like over paypal
2. At the end of the week one of them is selected and refunded 2 times his contribution amount
3. To make things interesting and ensure the scheme "helps" and not "hurts" IV: Change the selection process every once in a while e.g. One week you select the user who has donated an "average" amount, but next week you select the "highest" donor, in the 3rd week you select the "5th" name in the donor's list irrespective of his amount, and so on.
e.g.
consider the following players/amounts in a given week:
user1: $20
user2: $100
user3: $10
user4: $45
user5: $25
user6: $50
user7: $25
user8: $5
user9: $10
user10: $100
________
Total: $390
Divide by 10 users: $39
This week's selection process: Select the "average" donor.
Who donated an amount closest to the average? : user4 ($45)
Therefore, refund user4 for $90
What IV received in the process: $390- $90 = $300
The other BIG question is: what incentive do people then have to sign up for monthly contributions, which is clearly the preferred way of contributing as it helps in planning and budgeting? The answer would probably be "bigger" prizes for those who sign up for monthly contributions!
Of course... if only people realize there can be no greater incentive than receiving your Green Card sooner/ being able to apply for AOS any time after LC/PERM stage is cleared.... we would not have to care about all these fancy ideas!
Too bad people can't see what is "2+2" until it is shown as 2*2*2 - 2^2!
Is this a legal option for a non profit? If so, I suggest we go for it!
Here is one scheme I have been thinking about:
1. Every week members donate any amount they like over paypal
2. At the end of the week one of them is selected and refunded 2 times his contribution amount
3. To make things interesting and ensure the scheme "helps" and not "hurts" IV: Change the selection process every once in a while e.g. One week you select the user who has donated an "average" amount, but next week you select the "highest" donor, in the 3rd week you select the "5th" name in the donor's list irrespective of his amount, and so on.
e.g.
consider the following players/amounts in a given week:
user1: $20
user2: $100
user3: $10
user4: $45
user5: $25
user6: $50
user7: $25
user8: $5
user9: $10
user10: $100
________
Total: $390
Divide by 10 users: $39
This week's selection process: Select the "average" donor.
Who donated an amount closest to the average? : user4 ($45)
Therefore, refund user4 for $90
What IV received in the process: $390- $90 = $300
The other BIG question is: what incentive do people then have to sign up for monthly contributions, which is clearly the preferred way of contributing as it helps in planning and budgeting? The answer would probably be "bigger" prizes for those who sign up for monthly contributions!
Of course... if only people realize there can be no greater incentive than receiving your Green Card sooner/ being able to apply for AOS any time after LC/PERM stage is cleared.... we would not have to care about all these fancy ideas!
Too bad people can't see what is "2+2" until it is shown as 2*2*2 - 2^2!