m306m
12-13 03:52 PM
Jazz,
As far as the fund drive is concerned I disagree that without the VB we would have not reached our goal We over 22.5K in 6 days. The VB provided a push but I am sure we could have collected the remaining 7.5K in 24 days.
Do you think the drive would have reached its original goal yesterday/early today without the January visa bulletin retrogressing us even further...?
I have my doubts about that... :)
And how far in the past would we need to retrogress to get another funding drive done...?
jazz
As far as the fund drive is concerned I disagree that without the VB we would have not reached our goal We over 22.5K in 6 days. The VB provided a push but I am sure we could have collected the remaining 7.5K in 24 days.
Do you think the drive would have reached its original goal yesterday/early today without the January visa bulletin retrogressing us even further...?
I have my doubts about that... :)
And how far in the past would we need to retrogress to get another funding drive done...?
jazz
wallpaper Love And Trust Tattoos. Love
mrdelhiite
07-26 07:36 AM
my 2 cents!!
if you are single and apply for 485 and get a EAD can still being ur wife from India on H4 as long as u DO NOT use EAD and DO NOT get 485 approved.
EAD to me has major benefits for the spouse. I think everyone agrees that 485 retrogression gona happen ... so if that happens u cannot get a 485 approval or add ur wife till almost close to 485 approval .. as ur PD wont be current. In this period u will never be able to use EAD as ur dependent will go out of H4 status ...
Also it is never recommended to use EAD and maintain H1 status ... so to me if you are single and have no plans as of yet to get married u will not use the interim benefits and pay EAD fee every year.
u will be in the 485 queue and if anything changes about green card u are atleast far enough to not to start ur application from beginning... also if for some reason u decide to use ur EAD the way around is ur wife to get another Visa like F1 ....
hope this helps.
if you are single and apply for 485 and get a EAD can still being ur wife from India on H4 as long as u DO NOT use EAD and DO NOT get 485 approved.
EAD to me has major benefits for the spouse. I think everyone agrees that 485 retrogression gona happen ... so if that happens u cannot get a 485 approval or add ur wife till almost close to 485 approval .. as ur PD wont be current. In this period u will never be able to use EAD as ur dependent will go out of H4 status ...
Also it is never recommended to use EAD and maintain H1 status ... so to me if you are single and have no plans as of yet to get married u will not use the interim benefits and pay EAD fee every year.
u will be in the 485 queue and if anything changes about green card u are atleast far enough to not to start ur application from beginning... also if for some reason u decide to use ur EAD the way around is ur wife to get another Visa like F1 ....
hope this helps.
utarlington
01-29 12:53 AM
Count me in. Just donated. Let me know if I can help fight this unfair memo in any way.
2011 sad love poems and quotes. sad
dotnetguru
07-02 04:35 PM
I could not help but to post all my research. i myself recovered money successfully from ex employer.now i am 100% confident that i can handle all claims(only when i am right and have proper documentation) without a lawyer.never file a case in first step.this is how one can go.....
1) complain to State DOL (not federal dol) with the one page filled form and required documents.i faxed the form at 9pm in the night and next morning at 8:30 am i got a call from the investigator to verify my complaint.i said yes.by afternoon he called the employer and asked abt the complaint.at that time my state had only 2 investigators for whole state but see the quick response.i asked investigator how he is going to proceed.he said over 80% are solved on phone.this is how they do it.the investigator calls employer and says i received complaint like this and do u accept or not.if u do not accept we have to come to ur office and look at all the records.if we find more violations we will issue 100$(my state had this fee) for each violation.if u accept u have to pay 100$ for this violation....take a guess what the employer says....by next day afternoon investigation was done.then state dol sends violation notice to employer and employer pays that.after 1 week i got complete documents of the investigation and a letter saying this will help in ur civil case to recover money.
2) i waited for some time to give my employer time if he is going to give my money.but i did not get.next thing i did is went to federal dol Wage and hour(W&H) office which was near to my home.u have to remember federal dol w&H works different from state dol.state dol investigates and imposes fine etc and sends all the resulting documents to u.federal dol w&h takes the complaint and works to settle the wages between u and employer.for my case employer was willing to pay 5 times less than what i was supposed to get.dol w&h called me and said r u willing to settle for this amount.i said no and i will go to court.again i got the documents after 2 or 3 days.
3) here u have option to go to court to file a civil case or complain to ICE.ICE is little serious thing and i thought i will do that if i run out all my options.
4) filing a civil case in small claims court is very easy if u follow right steps.u have to know company exact info as per secretary of state filing. search secretary of state "ur state" in google and u will get ur state secretary of state web site. search the company name and find ur exact company name,agent name and address.
also,u have to file in the same county where ur employer is in or if ur employer is out of state u might file where u r working(some like that).i would ask the clerk whether i can file this case here.if its wrong county,ur case disposition will be rejected.u will waste fees and u have to file again in right county.even though i found all the info and asked the clerk 5 times,she told me the wrong info.ofcourse i recovered that money too.each state has limit on small claims court.mine was like 7000$ and 7500$ was the limit. as per the law if u did not get ur salary within 48hrs or the next pay date of the company u r entitled to get 3 times what u r owed.u need to write a letter saying why u r filing and how much u want.this letter is very important and write what documents proof u have.i wrote dol investigation was already done and i have all the documents proof and hence i am claiming 21,000$ as per the law.since small claims court has 7500$ limited, judge will give u 7500$ when u win the case.after filing the case employer will have 30 days and mine was settled out of court for the full amount he owed including the court costs.if the amount is more than small claims court amount u can file in appeals court.u can defend ur self and no need of attorney as DOL already completed investigation successfully in favor of u.there is no way employer can deny the dol investigation results.
5) if going to court is too intimidating go for ICE and ice does all the work for u.but ICE is a very serious organization and u know the rest.....
do not communicate with the employer by phone or by in person.if u want, communicate thru e-mail as there will be proof and be very courteous,professional as if u r the victim.keep all the e-mails and replies if at all u go to court and show the judge.judges always gives benefit of doubt to employee in these cases and to tenants in landlord-tenant cases regarding lease,deposits etc.
the negative thing abt going to court in the first step is u do not have proof that ur employer did not give checks.usually employers run the pay roll regularly but they do not give u the checks.they save all those checks with the right date when u were supposed to get but they do not give.when u go to the court in first step what they do is show copies of those checks and tell the judge i gave the checks on time and u did not deposit.the burden is on the employee to deposit the checks on right time.so,basically u r screwed at that time.all these employers know that.that is why u have to be calm and diligent so that u do not do this silly mistake.
this is how i went and i read a lot on the internet before doing.hope this helps.please do research and act accordingly as each case may differ...
I am not an attorney...i am just an immigrant stuck in GC Q like u guys....
1) complain to State DOL (not federal dol) with the one page filled form and required documents.i faxed the form at 9pm in the night and next morning at 8:30 am i got a call from the investigator to verify my complaint.i said yes.by afternoon he called the employer and asked abt the complaint.at that time my state had only 2 investigators for whole state but see the quick response.i asked investigator how he is going to proceed.he said over 80% are solved on phone.this is how they do it.the investigator calls employer and says i received complaint like this and do u accept or not.if u do not accept we have to come to ur office and look at all the records.if we find more violations we will issue 100$(my state had this fee) for each violation.if u accept u have to pay 100$ for this violation....take a guess what the employer says....by next day afternoon investigation was done.then state dol sends violation notice to employer and employer pays that.after 1 week i got complete documents of the investigation and a letter saying this will help in ur civil case to recover money.
2) i waited for some time to give my employer time if he is going to give my money.but i did not get.next thing i did is went to federal dol Wage and hour(W&H) office which was near to my home.u have to remember federal dol w&H works different from state dol.state dol investigates and imposes fine etc and sends all the resulting documents to u.federal dol w&h takes the complaint and works to settle the wages between u and employer.for my case employer was willing to pay 5 times less than what i was supposed to get.dol w&h called me and said r u willing to settle for this amount.i said no and i will go to court.again i got the documents after 2 or 3 days.
3) here u have option to go to court to file a civil case or complain to ICE.ICE is little serious thing and i thought i will do that if i run out all my options.
4) filing a civil case in small claims court is very easy if u follow right steps.u have to know company exact info as per secretary of state filing. search secretary of state "ur state" in google and u will get ur state secretary of state web site. search the company name and find ur exact company name,agent name and address.
also,u have to file in the same county where ur employer is in or if ur employer is out of state u might file where u r working(some like that).i would ask the clerk whether i can file this case here.if its wrong county,ur case disposition will be rejected.u will waste fees and u have to file again in right county.even though i found all the info and asked the clerk 5 times,she told me the wrong info.ofcourse i recovered that money too.each state has limit on small claims court.mine was like 7000$ and 7500$ was the limit. as per the law if u did not get ur salary within 48hrs or the next pay date of the company u r entitled to get 3 times what u r owed.u need to write a letter saying why u r filing and how much u want.this letter is very important and write what documents proof u have.i wrote dol investigation was already done and i have all the documents proof and hence i am claiming 21,000$ as per the law.since small claims court has 7500$ limited, judge will give u 7500$ when u win the case.after filing the case employer will have 30 days and mine was settled out of court for the full amount he owed including the court costs.if the amount is more than small claims court amount u can file in appeals court.u can defend ur self and no need of attorney as DOL already completed investigation successfully in favor of u.there is no way employer can deny the dol investigation results.
5) if going to court is too intimidating go for ICE and ice does all the work for u.but ICE is a very serious organization and u know the rest.....
do not communicate with the employer by phone or by in person.if u want, communicate thru e-mail as there will be proof and be very courteous,professional as if u r the victim.keep all the e-mails and replies if at all u go to court and show the judge.judges always gives benefit of doubt to employee in these cases and to tenants in landlord-tenant cases regarding lease,deposits etc.
the negative thing abt going to court in the first step is u do not have proof that ur employer did not give checks.usually employers run the pay roll regularly but they do not give u the checks.they save all those checks with the right date when u were supposed to get but they do not give.when u go to the court in first step what they do is show copies of those checks and tell the judge i gave the checks on time and u did not deposit.the burden is on the employee to deposit the checks on right time.so,basically u r screwed at that time.all these employers know that.that is why u have to be calm and diligent so that u do not do this silly mistake.
this is how i went and i read a lot on the internet before doing.hope this helps.please do research and act accordingly as each case may differ...
I am not an attorney...i am just an immigrant stuck in GC Q like u guys....
more...
sobers
02-20 12:23 PM
Friends,
I'm starting a new thread where I'll post research and stats that lend more credibility and/or support skilled, legal immigration. This should also be added to our presentation material for lawmakers!
Thanks!
-----------
Starting off, here is a recent study by the influential Kauffman Foundation which clearly backs the rationale for expanding skilled, legal immigration...
http://www.kauffman.org/news.cfm?itemID=678
New Kauffman Foundation Study Identifies Key Factors Driving Offshoring of Corporate R&D
Contacts:
Wendy Guillies, Kauffman Foundation, 816-932-1046, wguillies@kauffman.org
Tom Phillips, Communication Partners, 212-935-4655, comptwp@aol.com
KANSAS CITY, MO, February 16, 2006 - Contrary to popular belief, it is intellectual capital and university collaboration, not just lower costs, that primarily attract companies to locate R&D activities in locations away from their home country, according to a new study sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The study of more than 200 multinational companies across 15 industries, mostly headquartered in the United States and Western Europe, finds that emerging countries such as China and India will continue to be major beneficiaries of R&D expansion over the next three years as companies seek new market opportunities, access to top scientists and engineers, and collaborative research relationships with leading universities.
The study was released at a meeting of the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) of the National Academies. It was conducted by Marie Thursby, Ph.D., Professor of Strategic Management, Georgia Tech College of Management, and Jerry Thursby, Chair of the Department of Economics, Emory University, with sponsorship by the Kauffman Foundation.
Designed to identify and rank the importance of different factors feeding into the corporate decision-making process as to where to locate R&D facilities, the study also tracked R&D work coming into the United States from abroad, as well as R&D work going in the reverse direction; addressed favored countries for locating R&D work and why; and outlined trends industry expects for R&D expansion in the future.
Among the top factors going into new R&D siting decisions in both developed and emerging countries are market growth potential, quality of R&D talent, collaboration with universities and IP protection. How these factors influence the decision, however, depend on whether the site is in a developed or emerging country. In neither emerging nor developed countries was cost consideration the most important factor, which runs contrary to what has been reported by the media (according to an analysis of media coverage over the past few years in The Wall Street Journal and New York Times on multinational R&D locations).
Among the study's more surprising findings, according to the researchers, was the role university collaboration plays in the decision-making process for locating R&D facilities. In fact, collaboration with universities was particularly prevalent as a factor for expanding to emerging countries, even though these countries provide lesser degrees of IP protection.
"The study underscores the critical role universities play in a country's national innovation system, not just in the training of new scientists and access to the best talent, but in the ease of developing and licensing technology," said Carl Schramm, president and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation.
More than half of the corporate respondents who identify the United States as their home country report that they have either recently expanded or planned to locate R&D facilities in China and India vs. other developed countries. Of 63 Western European companies responding, 13 plan on expanding or locating new R&D facilities to the United States. The issue of collaborative research between universities and corporations has been a growing concern within the United States, with some observers saying legal wrangling over intellectual property rights is not only slowing the pace of innovation but also prompting companies to seek university research partners in other countries.
The study indicates, however, that while the trend toward R&D offshoring to Asia will continue despite concerns over IP protection, companies are keeping their most cutting-edge research in developed countries where IP protection is the strongest. According to the study, only 22 percent of the R&D effort in emerging countries is for new science.
"The United States would seem to have a comparative advantage in maintaining its innovative leadership through the high caliber of its scientists and its strong protection of IP," said Lesa Mitchell, vice president of Advancing Innovation at the Kauffman Foundation. "Industry and universities must be alert to removing obstacles to joint research, or emerging countries will overtake us in innovation breakthroughs, and the burst of discovery that has been driving our economy for the past half-century will be over."
Another public policy implication of the findings, say the researches, is that the United States must focus on highly skilled worker immigration.
"We are educating the best and the brightest, but make it impossible for them to stay in America and immigrate. We need major immigration reform that welcomes, instead of pushes out, highly skilled workers," said Dr. Marie Thursby.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation of Kansas City is a private, nonpartisan foundation that works with partners to advance entrepreneurship in America and improve the education of children and youth. The Kauffman Foundation was established in the mid-1960s by the late entrepreneur and philanthropist Ewing Marion
I'm starting a new thread where I'll post research and stats that lend more credibility and/or support skilled, legal immigration. This should also be added to our presentation material for lawmakers!
Thanks!
-----------
Starting off, here is a recent study by the influential Kauffman Foundation which clearly backs the rationale for expanding skilled, legal immigration...
http://www.kauffman.org/news.cfm?itemID=678
New Kauffman Foundation Study Identifies Key Factors Driving Offshoring of Corporate R&D
Contacts:
Wendy Guillies, Kauffman Foundation, 816-932-1046, wguillies@kauffman.org
Tom Phillips, Communication Partners, 212-935-4655, comptwp@aol.com
KANSAS CITY, MO, February 16, 2006 - Contrary to popular belief, it is intellectual capital and university collaboration, not just lower costs, that primarily attract companies to locate R&D activities in locations away from their home country, according to a new study sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The study of more than 200 multinational companies across 15 industries, mostly headquartered in the United States and Western Europe, finds that emerging countries such as China and India will continue to be major beneficiaries of R&D expansion over the next three years as companies seek new market opportunities, access to top scientists and engineers, and collaborative research relationships with leading universities.
The study was released at a meeting of the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) of the National Academies. It was conducted by Marie Thursby, Ph.D., Professor of Strategic Management, Georgia Tech College of Management, and Jerry Thursby, Chair of the Department of Economics, Emory University, with sponsorship by the Kauffman Foundation.
Designed to identify and rank the importance of different factors feeding into the corporate decision-making process as to where to locate R&D facilities, the study also tracked R&D work coming into the United States from abroad, as well as R&D work going in the reverse direction; addressed favored countries for locating R&D work and why; and outlined trends industry expects for R&D expansion in the future.
Among the top factors going into new R&D siting decisions in both developed and emerging countries are market growth potential, quality of R&D talent, collaboration with universities and IP protection. How these factors influence the decision, however, depend on whether the site is in a developed or emerging country. In neither emerging nor developed countries was cost consideration the most important factor, which runs contrary to what has been reported by the media (according to an analysis of media coverage over the past few years in The Wall Street Journal and New York Times on multinational R&D locations).
Among the study's more surprising findings, according to the researchers, was the role university collaboration plays in the decision-making process for locating R&D facilities. In fact, collaboration with universities was particularly prevalent as a factor for expanding to emerging countries, even though these countries provide lesser degrees of IP protection.
"The study underscores the critical role universities play in a country's national innovation system, not just in the training of new scientists and access to the best talent, but in the ease of developing and licensing technology," said Carl Schramm, president and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation.
More than half of the corporate respondents who identify the United States as their home country report that they have either recently expanded or planned to locate R&D facilities in China and India vs. other developed countries. Of 63 Western European companies responding, 13 plan on expanding or locating new R&D facilities to the United States. The issue of collaborative research between universities and corporations has been a growing concern within the United States, with some observers saying legal wrangling over intellectual property rights is not only slowing the pace of innovation but also prompting companies to seek university research partners in other countries.
The study indicates, however, that while the trend toward R&D offshoring to Asia will continue despite concerns over IP protection, companies are keeping their most cutting-edge research in developed countries where IP protection is the strongest. According to the study, only 22 percent of the R&D effort in emerging countries is for new science.
"The United States would seem to have a comparative advantage in maintaining its innovative leadership through the high caliber of its scientists and its strong protection of IP," said Lesa Mitchell, vice president of Advancing Innovation at the Kauffman Foundation. "Industry and universities must be alert to removing obstacles to joint research, or emerging countries will overtake us in innovation breakthroughs, and the burst of discovery that has been driving our economy for the past half-century will be over."
Another public policy implication of the findings, say the researches, is that the United States must focus on highly skilled worker immigration.
"We are educating the best and the brightest, but make it impossible for them to stay in America and immigrate. We need major immigration reform that welcomes, instead of pushes out, highly skilled workers," said Dr. Marie Thursby.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation of Kansas City is a private, nonpartisan foundation that works with partners to advance entrepreneurship in America and improve the education of children and youth. The Kauffman Foundation was established in the mid-1960s by the late entrepreneur and philanthropist Ewing Marion
aspiration
06-11 01:19 PM
Called all 6 rep's offices plus my local north carolina 4th district rep David Price.
Everyone note down the bill numbers and said that they will pass on the message.. Mary Bono's office asked to call local rep office, which i did before..
Some of them were very nice and asked the address and name and all, whereas some of them just got the bill numbers and were eager to hang up the phone..
....Apart from contributing during the funding drive.. this is my first action to call reps...Felt great and encourage everyone else to give it a try....Try calling just one of them and you will feel the urge to call all of them and do your part...
Everyone note down the bill numbers and said that they will pass on the message.. Mary Bono's office asked to call local rep office, which i did before..
Some of them were very nice and asked the address and name and all, whereas some of them just got the bill numbers and were eager to hang up the phone..
....Apart from contributing during the funding drive.. this is my first action to call reps...Felt great and encourage everyone else to give it a try....Try calling just one of them and you will feel the urge to call all of them and do your part...
more...
eb3_nepa
02-05 09:41 PM
I totally agree with you viva...
Is this a solution to retrogression?
Oh my god...
USCIS please let our spouses work and take as much time as you want to give us the green card we are not in a hurry!!!!
How can anyone come up with these un realistic solutions man.
True true true This persons intension is not a GC but make money...
Please let us not go further into this, let us prepare ourselfs to fight for the I-485 provision that IV is working on..
We shall overcome
First off, i have mentioned above that this is NOT a solution to retrogression. Secondly, the USCIS does not care what we say to them, they are going to take exactly how much time they want to take to process our Green cards. All I was suggesting was, we ask for interim relief. Now like Logiclife mentioned we are trying for smaller bits of interim relief and that is a reasonable answer. However please do not make remarks like "this person is here to make money and is not after GC". Are we not all after making money? Is that not why we want GCs? We certainly dont want the GC to frame it and keep it next to our other trophies do we? Then why are people accusing me of wanting to "make money"? The problem with some people on this forum is the lack of respect for an alternate view. It is one thing to disagree and it is another to make ridiculous off topic remarks about what someone said.
Is this a solution to retrogression?
Oh my god...
USCIS please let our spouses work and take as much time as you want to give us the green card we are not in a hurry!!!!
How can anyone come up with these un realistic solutions man.
True true true This persons intension is not a GC but make money...
Please let us not go further into this, let us prepare ourselfs to fight for the I-485 provision that IV is working on..
We shall overcome
First off, i have mentioned above that this is NOT a solution to retrogression. Secondly, the USCIS does not care what we say to them, they are going to take exactly how much time they want to take to process our Green cards. All I was suggesting was, we ask for interim relief. Now like Logiclife mentioned we are trying for smaller bits of interim relief and that is a reasonable answer. However please do not make remarks like "this person is here to make money and is not after GC". Are we not all after making money? Is that not why we want GCs? We certainly dont want the GC to frame it and keep it next to our other trophies do we? Then why are people accusing me of wanting to "make money"? The problem with some people on this forum is the lack of respect for an alternate view. It is one thing to disagree and it is another to make ridiculous off topic remarks about what someone said.
2010 Love, trust and support your
ivgclive
01-18 03:24 PM
H1 - Permanant (inUSCIS terms, my sponsor has direct control over my day to day job)
But I believe it is going to affect everyone soon, whether you are in H1/L1/EAD, decided to fight.
I will contribute what I can at my best.
But I believe it is going to affect everyone soon, whether you are in H1/L1/EAD, decided to fight.
I will contribute what I can at my best.
more...
bugsbunny
04-17 08:16 PM
The fact that he's asking whether he qualifies for one, on an online forum,shows his level of skill and education. Enough said :)
wow! you can't even ask your peers for honest feedback without being judged. :(
wow! you can't even ask your peers for honest feedback without being judged. :(
hair love and trust quotes. quotes
never_giveup
09-17 01:52 PM
I am not seeing any movement in the video. I can just see the American Eagle on the screen? any idea whats going on.. ? ??
Try closing ur window and re-opening it. It works for me now.
Try closing ur window and re-opening it. It works for me now.
more...
desi3933
01-28 01:52 PM
[From the pdf file]
The regulatory definition of "United States employer" requires H-IB employers to have a tax identification number, to employ persons in the United States, and to have an "employer-employee relationship" with the
H-1B "employee." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Accordingly, the term "United States employer" not only requires H-IB employers and employees to have an "employer-employee relationship" as understood by common-law agency doctrine, it imposes additional requirements, thus indicating that the regulations do not indicate an intent to extend the definition beyond "the traditional common law definition." Therefore, in the absence of an intent to impose broader definitions by either Congress or USCIS, the "conventional masterservant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine," and the Darden construction test, apply to the terms "employee," "employer-employee relationship," "employed," and "employment" as used in section IOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, section 212(n) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. � 214.2(h). That being said, there are instances in the Act where Congress may have intended a broader application of the term "employer" than what is encompassed in the conventional master-servant relationship. See, e.g., section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(2)(F) (referring to "unaffiliated employers" supervising and controlling L-1B intracompany transferees having specialized knowledge); section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1324a (referring to the employment of unauthorized aliens).
http://www.uscis.gov/err/D2%20-%20Temporary%20Worker%20in%20a%20Specialty%20Occup ation%20or%20Fashion%20Model%20%28H-1B%29/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jul062009_06D2101.pdf
_________________
Not a legal advice.
The regulatory definition of "United States employer" requires H-IB employers to have a tax identification number, to employ persons in the United States, and to have an "employer-employee relationship" with the
H-1B "employee." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Accordingly, the term "United States employer" not only requires H-IB employers and employees to have an "employer-employee relationship" as understood by common-law agency doctrine, it imposes additional requirements, thus indicating that the regulations do not indicate an intent to extend the definition beyond "the traditional common law definition." Therefore, in the absence of an intent to impose broader definitions by either Congress or USCIS, the "conventional masterservant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine," and the Darden construction test, apply to the terms "employee," "employer-employee relationship," "employed," and "employment" as used in section IOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, section 212(n) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. � 214.2(h). That being said, there are instances in the Act where Congress may have intended a broader application of the term "employer" than what is encompassed in the conventional master-servant relationship. See, e.g., section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(2)(F) (referring to "unaffiliated employers" supervising and controlling L-1B intracompany transferees having specialized knowledge); section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1324a (referring to the employment of unauthorized aliens).
http://www.uscis.gov/err/D2%20-%20Temporary%20Worker%20in%20a%20Specialty%20Occup ation%20or%20Fashion%20Model%20%28H-1B%29/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jul062009_06D2101.pdf
_________________
Not a legal advice.
hot love you forever poems. love
smartboy75
10-12 04:33 PM
To Everyone...
DO NOT PANIC. These notices are usually sent when you have any H1 transfer pendings most of the time ( at least in case of H1). By law, the employer is supposed to notify USCIS whenever any employer has left the company.
The re-opening of case is a letter from USCIS to the previous employers to confirm that the employee no longer works and is usually sent to the attorney.
So chill and don't sweat.
DO NOT PANIC. These notices are usually sent when you have any H1 transfer pendings most of the time ( at least in case of H1). By law, the employer is supposed to notify USCIS whenever any employer has left the company.
The re-opening of case is a letter from USCIS to the previous employers to confirm that the employee no longer works and is usually sent to the attorney.
So chill and don't sweat.
more...
house gangsta love poem. gangsta
immi_twinges
07-17 03:09 PM
I agree with you immi...I would love to have that but i believe its not practical...coz as per existing laws there are 140k employement visas alloted per year...if you are gonna use uncaptured visas from the previous years then this number would be >140k.. which would require a change in the law...with the current govt in power (inspite of the President being pro immigration),Iraq war,elections,Anti immigration sentiments before elections,etc..i donot foresee it happeneing anytime soon... my $0.02
First they Ignore us,
Then they laugh at us,
Then they fight us,
Then we win.
- MK Gandhi
Have faith ... never loose hope with out trying
We should never come to conclusions before trying.
I saw in other thread that president is signing a petition related to backlogged passport application...well that is going on smoothly with out any hurdle..
Dream act is introduced with out any hurdle.
May be its the right time .They are unsuccessful with the illegal immigration (amnesty bill) .... If we try legal immigration issues now... may be they will be okay .... I dont think there will much opposition for legal immigration as there was for illegal immigration
We are not asking for increase in number...we are asking for the numbers we lost due to the USCIS laziness.
I think we can ask for it...Its not our mistake...its USCIS mistake
I don't think even citizens will oppose it...we have been waiting so long...they will understand...
I think its the right time ... my boss was saying that he heard how many visa numbers were wasted on Public radio and he was very sympathetic.
May be they will not agree on increasing the GC numbers or taking dependents out of the GC count but i am sure they will be okay recapturing the lost numbers
May be not all one time...at least in installments ...heheh this can work too
Lets try guys...we had such a big publicity and very good response recently...dont let it go it waste..lets put a little more effort
First they Ignore us,
Then they laugh at us,
Then they fight us,
Then we win.
- MK Gandhi
Have faith ... never loose hope with out trying
We should never come to conclusions before trying.
I saw in other thread that president is signing a petition related to backlogged passport application...well that is going on smoothly with out any hurdle..
Dream act is introduced with out any hurdle.
May be its the right time .They are unsuccessful with the illegal immigration (amnesty bill) .... If we try legal immigration issues now... may be they will be okay .... I dont think there will much opposition for legal immigration as there was for illegal immigration
We are not asking for increase in number...we are asking for the numbers we lost due to the USCIS laziness.
I think we can ask for it...Its not our mistake...its USCIS mistake
I don't think even citizens will oppose it...we have been waiting so long...they will understand...
I think its the right time ... my boss was saying that he heard how many visa numbers were wasted on Public radio and he was very sympathetic.
May be they will not agree on increasing the GC numbers or taking dependents out of the GC count but i am sure they will be okay recapturing the lost numbers
May be not all one time...at least in installments ...heheh this can work too
Lets try guys...we had such a big publicity and very good response recently...dont let it go it waste..lets put a little more effort
tattoo wallpaper dark love poems for
mirage
03-10 10:52 PM
As I thought about this further, I figured out the data is even worse than I thought earlier, as this may not have any 2007 numbers. People who filed their labors in 2007 were still waiting in july of 2007. So this data is only upto late 2006. Now the figures could be
EB-3
5000 2001
20000 2002
20000 2003
20000 2004
5000 2005
5000 2006
EB-2
10000 2004
20000 2005
20000 2006
This is my guess, This is how it could be distributed(I know it is a very vague guess)...
EB-3
10000 2001
15000 2002
15000 2003
15000 2004
10000 2005
5000 2006
5000 2007
5000 2008
EB-2
5000 2004
10000 2005
15000 2006
20000 2007
20000 2008
EB-3
5000 2001
20000 2002
20000 2003
20000 2004
5000 2005
5000 2006
EB-2
10000 2004
20000 2005
20000 2006
This is my guess, This is how it could be distributed(I know it is a very vague guess)...
EB-3
10000 2001
15000 2002
15000 2003
15000 2004
10000 2005
5000 2006
5000 2007
5000 2008
EB-2
5000 2004
10000 2005
15000 2006
20000 2007
20000 2008
more...
pictures house roken trust quotes for
caliguy
10-27 02:02 PM
Thank you @ fatjoe.
Sure, will let you know as soon as I get the cards.
Congrats again cali.
I could understand how much anxious and desparate you were. I guess you were the only one to try numerous ways to stand up for your right. I greatly appreciate your perseverence. Update us, when you get your card on hand.
Sure, will let you know as soon as I get the cards.
Congrats again cali.
I could understand how much anxious and desparate you were. I guess you were the only one to try numerous ways to stand up for your right. I greatly appreciate your perseverence. Update us, when you get your card on hand.
dresses love poems and quotes
rheoretro
11-13 02:46 PM
- First, it is highly unlikely that Hastert will ever, ever support CIR. That itself is a "red flag" from a post by "Red card."
- Actions speak louder than words. If Murtha becomes the majority leader in house than Democrat agenda for 2008 presidential agenda will be Iraq not immigration. That doesn't mean no immigration reform, just not in the "lame-duck" session.
- Lets wait for next year for any progress on immigration.
GCS999 - excellent points! I asked someone yesterday why they even care about Hastert. He's toast, anyway.There's a very revealing article in the Washington Post today, which says that the Dems will tread cautiously, and perhaps even slowly, on immigration. And they have bigger fish to fry, the number one being Iraq. Not sure what the needless hullabaloo about the lame duck session is. People need to stop crying wolf.
Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration
Explosive Issue Not A Top Priority For Incoming Leaders
By Darryl Fears and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 13, 2006; A03
When election results started rolling in Tuesday, Cecilia Mu�oz said that she and other immigration advocates were "holding our breath." One by one, Republicans who had fought tooth and nail for stricter immigration laws fell, turning control of Congress over to the Democrats.
By morning, a 700-mile Mexican border fence passed by Republicans in a pre-election gambit had fallen flat with voters. A sharply worded GOP bill that targeted illegal immigrants and spurred marches by millions of Latinos in the spring appeared likely to fade into memory.
"I think this is the best environment we've had on the issue in quite some time," said Cassandra Q. Butts, a senior vice president for the pro-immigration Center for American Progress.
But when it comes to immigration, things are never easy. In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.
"It's not without its challenges, for sure," said Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "You've got opposition in both parties. You still have restrictionists in the Republican Party. You have Democrats who've been reluctant to move on any kind of worker program."
Butterfield predicted that lobbyists and Democrats have less than a year to move legislation that could put some 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to legal residency, before the looming 2008 elections make a deal politically impossible. And analysts say the fate of President Bush's proposal to create a temporary worker program for 200,000 immigrants is in doubt, with labor's allies in charge.
In recent days, advocates have been burning up the phone lines talking to one another and to try to determine whom House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumed speaker of the next Congress, will appoint to key committees, and how the new Democratically controlled Congress will approach the issue.
Major challenges lay ahead. The Mexican border remains a sieve where an estimated 100,000 immigrants sneak into the country every year. Conservatives in the House, and some Democrats, want the border sealed with manpower, fencing and technological gadgets before they will even consider guest workers.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes increased immigration, said Democrats should implement an enforcement program first. Anything else might be political suicide.
"The Democrats need to get their majority reelected in the next two years," Krikorian said. "My sense is that the Democrats have grown up enough to know they can't get reelected trying to get everything they want."
Immigration experts are on the lookout for the kind of compromises that led to the flawed immigration reform laws of 1986 and 1996. In those years, a White House and Congress split between the two parties passed watered-down laws requiring employers to check the legal status of new hires to satisfy businesses and immigration advocates. They also failed to give enforcement agencies the money, staff, technology or practical ability to do the job.
The miscues paved the way for an explosion of illegal immigration.
"The question is, will this just be another split-the-baby approach, such as we saw in 1986," said Robert Bonner, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2003 to 2005, "or are we actually going to do something that is going to seriously achieve the objectives of controlling the border?"
At the White House Friday, the Bush administration struck a bipartisan chord, trumpeting both border enforcement and a guest worker initiative. "The President believes a temporary guest worker program, where you will know if you're in or you're out, is going to relieve pressure on the border and also reduce the incentive for people to travel from Central America through Mexico in search of such jobs," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.
Bush supports a proposal by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to allow foreign nationals currently outside the country to work in the United States temporarily. Illegal immigrants now in the country could work too, but only if they pay a $2,000 penalty for breaking the law, pay back taxes, undergo a criminal check, learn English, take civics lessons, go to the back of the employment line and then work six years with no legal problems.
The McCain-Kennedy bill would also strengthen the border and create a computerized system to check the legal status of workers. The Senate bill would authorize spending $400 million to expand a pilot program used by 5,000 employers to cover new hires by more than 8 million U.S. companies within 18 months.
But some experts are skeptical. The non-partisan Migration Policy Institute has said that the pilot system is flawed, will take at least three years to implement, and will fail unless it is made much more accurate. The MPI panel, co-chaired by former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) also said other steps are needed, such as producing tamper-proof Social Security or other employment ID card based on fingerprints or other unique identifying features.
Others say thousands of immigration investigators are needed to verify legal workers and track down those who remain in the country illegally.
James W. Ziglar, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said if Congress does take up an overhaul, "the recognition that enforcement has to be of equal stature is something that will occur this time, because the lessons learned from the 1986 act are still burning very brightly in the minds of people on both sides of the debate."
Mu�oz, a vice president at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights group, said Democrats should move carefully ahead with a plan that satisfies both sides.
"This notion that it's dangerous to vote to support comprehensive immigration reform I believe to be false," she said. In Arizona, she said, voters rejected anti-immigration Republicans Randy Graf and Rep. J.D. Hayworth.
But, to show how complicated the issue is, Arizona voters also approved three referenda to make life tougher for illegal immigrants.
Anti-immigration Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who was distraught after the election, believing a guest worker program was inevitable under the Democrats, now says he's changed his mind.
"It seemed to me that it was not going to be as easy for them as I had anticipated or feared," Tancredo said. "They're not putting it out there as their number one, out-of-the-box issue."
The more he thought about the issue, the more cloudy the future seemed.
"I don't know," he said. A temporary guest worker program "could certainly happen. I may be just skipping past the graveyard."
- Actions speak louder than words. If Murtha becomes the majority leader in house than Democrat agenda for 2008 presidential agenda will be Iraq not immigration. That doesn't mean no immigration reform, just not in the "lame-duck" session.
- Lets wait for next year for any progress on immigration.
GCS999 - excellent points! I asked someone yesterday why they even care about Hastert. He's toast, anyway.There's a very revealing article in the Washington Post today, which says that the Dems will tread cautiously, and perhaps even slowly, on immigration. And they have bigger fish to fry, the number one being Iraq. Not sure what the needless hullabaloo about the lame duck session is. People need to stop crying wolf.
Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration
Explosive Issue Not A Top Priority For Incoming Leaders
By Darryl Fears and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 13, 2006; A03
When election results started rolling in Tuesday, Cecilia Mu�oz said that she and other immigration advocates were "holding our breath." One by one, Republicans who had fought tooth and nail for stricter immigration laws fell, turning control of Congress over to the Democrats.
By morning, a 700-mile Mexican border fence passed by Republicans in a pre-election gambit had fallen flat with voters. A sharply worded GOP bill that targeted illegal immigrants and spurred marches by millions of Latinos in the spring appeared likely to fade into memory.
"I think this is the best environment we've had on the issue in quite some time," said Cassandra Q. Butts, a senior vice president for the pro-immigration Center for American Progress.
But when it comes to immigration, things are never easy. In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.
"It's not without its challenges, for sure," said Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "You've got opposition in both parties. You still have restrictionists in the Republican Party. You have Democrats who've been reluctant to move on any kind of worker program."
Butterfield predicted that lobbyists and Democrats have less than a year to move legislation that could put some 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to legal residency, before the looming 2008 elections make a deal politically impossible. And analysts say the fate of President Bush's proposal to create a temporary worker program for 200,000 immigrants is in doubt, with labor's allies in charge.
In recent days, advocates have been burning up the phone lines talking to one another and to try to determine whom House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumed speaker of the next Congress, will appoint to key committees, and how the new Democratically controlled Congress will approach the issue.
Major challenges lay ahead. The Mexican border remains a sieve where an estimated 100,000 immigrants sneak into the country every year. Conservatives in the House, and some Democrats, want the border sealed with manpower, fencing and technological gadgets before they will even consider guest workers.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes increased immigration, said Democrats should implement an enforcement program first. Anything else might be political suicide.
"The Democrats need to get their majority reelected in the next two years," Krikorian said. "My sense is that the Democrats have grown up enough to know they can't get reelected trying to get everything they want."
Immigration experts are on the lookout for the kind of compromises that led to the flawed immigration reform laws of 1986 and 1996. In those years, a White House and Congress split between the two parties passed watered-down laws requiring employers to check the legal status of new hires to satisfy businesses and immigration advocates. They also failed to give enforcement agencies the money, staff, technology or practical ability to do the job.
The miscues paved the way for an explosion of illegal immigration.
"The question is, will this just be another split-the-baby approach, such as we saw in 1986," said Robert Bonner, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2003 to 2005, "or are we actually going to do something that is going to seriously achieve the objectives of controlling the border?"
At the White House Friday, the Bush administration struck a bipartisan chord, trumpeting both border enforcement and a guest worker initiative. "The President believes a temporary guest worker program, where you will know if you're in or you're out, is going to relieve pressure on the border and also reduce the incentive for people to travel from Central America through Mexico in search of such jobs," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.
Bush supports a proposal by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to allow foreign nationals currently outside the country to work in the United States temporarily. Illegal immigrants now in the country could work too, but only if they pay a $2,000 penalty for breaking the law, pay back taxes, undergo a criminal check, learn English, take civics lessons, go to the back of the employment line and then work six years with no legal problems.
The McCain-Kennedy bill would also strengthen the border and create a computerized system to check the legal status of workers. The Senate bill would authorize spending $400 million to expand a pilot program used by 5,000 employers to cover new hires by more than 8 million U.S. companies within 18 months.
But some experts are skeptical. The non-partisan Migration Policy Institute has said that the pilot system is flawed, will take at least three years to implement, and will fail unless it is made much more accurate. The MPI panel, co-chaired by former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) also said other steps are needed, such as producing tamper-proof Social Security or other employment ID card based on fingerprints or other unique identifying features.
Others say thousands of immigration investigators are needed to verify legal workers and track down those who remain in the country illegally.
James W. Ziglar, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said if Congress does take up an overhaul, "the recognition that enforcement has to be of equal stature is something that will occur this time, because the lessons learned from the 1986 act are still burning very brightly in the minds of people on both sides of the debate."
Mu�oz, a vice president at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights group, said Democrats should move carefully ahead with a plan that satisfies both sides.
"This notion that it's dangerous to vote to support comprehensive immigration reform I believe to be false," she said. In Arizona, she said, voters rejected anti-immigration Republicans Randy Graf and Rep. J.D. Hayworth.
But, to show how complicated the issue is, Arizona voters also approved three referenda to make life tougher for illegal immigrants.
Anti-immigration Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who was distraught after the election, believing a guest worker program was inevitable under the Democrats, now says he's changed his mind.
"It seemed to me that it was not going to be as easy for them as I had anticipated or feared," Tancredo said. "They're not putting it out there as their number one, out-of-the-box issue."
The more he thought about the issue, the more cloudy the future seemed.
"I don't know," he said. A temporary guest worker program "could certainly happen. I may be just skipping past the graveyard."
more...
makeup cute love quotes and poems
sledge_hammer
04-19 02:43 PM
I work for a small growing company that is reporting losses for the last 2-3 years, but I still got my PERM and I-140 approved based on the fact that the company's asset value is way more than my salary.
Hi Folks,
I hope you could share your experiences if you belong to the same situation.
I have an approved EB2 labor cert thru PERM, and I belong to ROW. I am now preparing to file I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
I just saw my petitioner's(S-corporation) federal tax return. Gross revenue is $700,000; Net income is $20,000 which is only a quarter of my current wage. The offered wage per my labor cert is $80,000.
Do I have a big chance of denial in the I-140 stage due to employer's inability to pay? Please advise.
Thanks!
Hi Folks,
I hope you could share your experiences if you belong to the same situation.
I have an approved EB2 labor cert thru PERM, and I belong to ROW. I am now preparing to file I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
I just saw my petitioner's(S-corporation) federal tax return. Gross revenue is $700,000; Net income is $20,000 which is only a quarter of my current wage. The offered wage per my labor cert is $80,000.
Do I have a big chance of denial in the I-140 stage due to employer's inability to pay? Please advise.
Thanks!
girlfriend proof of love is trust.
Oli-G
06-17 01:10 AM
Thanks duder! I was rather partial to your second one, with the rust-like colours.
hairstyles quotes on love and trust. i
Krishna Battula
07-16 10:49 AM
signed and posted.
still_waiting
04-26 12:48 PM
contributed $100 with pay date of 05/01/06.
You guys are doing great job !
You guys are doing great job !
gjoe
11-02 11:34 AM
All those who are questioning my profile details please check the public profile of mine. It has more info than most of you (Mr.internet) have in your own. To those who are calling to close this thread - Already someone modified the poll and added two new options, I won't be surprised if it is closed. If it is it will only show how fake some of you are when you talk about a few reasons ( not all) why GC backlogged should be solved fast.
Someone wanted the moderators to ban me. Tell me why I should be banned? Do you say you just want everyone to only listen to what you say and what you want them to do? You can't tolerate others' opinions and thoughts?
I am here in this country on H1B since 2000. I am also one of you waiting in this endless queue for my GC. I am also like one of you trying to get my GC fast. But I don't like to lie or twist facts for my convenience.
Thought for the day "Walk a mile in the shoes of an American before you ask them to beleive what you say"
Someone wanted the moderators to ban me. Tell me why I should be banned? Do you say you just want everyone to only listen to what you say and what you want them to do? You can't tolerate others' opinions and thoughts?
I am here in this country on H1B since 2000. I am also one of you waiting in this endless queue for my GC. I am also like one of you trying to get my GC fast. But I don't like to lie or twist facts for my convenience.
Thought for the day "Walk a mile in the shoes of an American before you ask them to beleive what you say"