ashkam
07-24 12:31 PM
employment letter is not part of initial evidnece per the FAQ issue by USCIS on 07/23/2007. Only signatures and exact fee amounts are part of initial evidence. Sit back and relax now.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
It doesn't say that anywhere in the link. The 485 filing instructions clearly state what the initial evidence is.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
It doesn't say that anywhere in the link. The 485 filing instructions clearly state what the initial evidence is.
wallpaper This tattoo was a nice treat,
chanduv23
01-30 09:08 PM
Benching is a concept where a H1b employee is not productive to the sponsering employer, during this time the employer does not want to pay the employee. This is not permitted because such a concept just does not make sense.
Generally people find it difficult to find their first work assignment when they do not have US experience and a lot of people have initial bench, which is also not valid, but it is common.
Nowadays a lot of these body shops also manage to get some product development or outsourced work from clients and when their employees come on bench they are made to work on these internal projects or manage outsourced work and their payroll continues as they do productive work as well as look for future assignments.
Your case is defferent and you not recieving pay check during summer is not bench.
Prolonged benching have been taken seriously by USCIS. I am not aware of any cases in detail but people have had issues with spouses not getting h4 etc...
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
Generally people find it difficult to find their first work assignment when they do not have US experience and a lot of people have initial bench, which is also not valid, but it is common.
Nowadays a lot of these body shops also manage to get some product development or outsourced work from clients and when their employees come on bench they are made to work on these internal projects or manage outsourced work and their payroll continues as they do productive work as well as look for future assignments.
Your case is defferent and you not recieving pay check during summer is not bench.
Prolonged benching have been taken seriously by USCIS. I am not aware of any cases in detail but people have had issues with spouses not getting h4 etc...
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
2011 Client decided on a uddha
.soulty
03-09 08:00 PM
just enter whatever you have on the date and then fix it up after.. no drama, you can always use this piece for a portfolio or something and you can showcase it later.
more...
vkrishn
07-16 11:32 AM
Don't know about his company...but the attorney definitely must be quite rich with all the legal charges :D
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
bheemi
07-02 07:03 AM
i can say only one thing..IV willl not be able to do anythingin this regard.USCIS can do anything whatever the way hat want to do.
more...
EndlessWait
07-25 10:50 AM
Yes, I have this feeling already. Now, what happens if someone switches jobs using AC-21 and then this RFE is received? You have to submit the NEW employment / offer letter right? So how does this help the current employer to stop you from switching jobs?
I think its arguable. The 6 months clock is defined by law. After that even if they issue an RFE on the old employer, assumption is ofcourse that your with a new employer, you can send the new employer's offer letter / AC21 invoked. so it shouldn't be an issue. USCIS can ask about the offer letter from the old employer as intial evidence, so have it available and send it later + new employment letter.
I think its arguable. The 6 months clock is defined by law. After that even if they issue an RFE on the old employer, assumption is ofcourse that your with a new employer, you can send the new employer's offer letter / AC21 invoked. so it shouldn't be an issue. USCIS can ask about the offer letter from the old employer as intial evidence, so have it available and send it later + new employment letter.
2010 Trend Tattoo Avatar -Tattoo
sreedhar
03-16 12:51 PM
My Friend...Applied his Labor on EB-2 in MAR 2005. His labor approved and applied I-140 & I-485 in AUG 2007. His I-140 Got approved. He said his lawyer accidentally filed his I-140 in EB-3. Because his I-140 approved notice Type has the message like "Skilled Worker or Professional, Sec. 203(b) (3) (A) (i) or (ii)". Is this is true....? Thanks for early reply.
more...
alex99
07-07 08:27 PM
Request More Eb3 Guys To Participate......
Please....
Please....
hair Buddha Tattoo Design With
ajthakur
07-14 05:44 PM
PD: Jan 2006
Category: EB2
Could you inform us what your Eb category is and what is your priority dates.
TIA
Category: EB2
Could you inform us what your Eb category is and what is your priority dates.
TIA
more...
alex99
04-10 10:35 AM
please participate
hot Buddha Tattoo on Foot
bodhi_tree
06-06 01:59 PM
We got the "welcome" and "card production ordered" email for my wife and I today too. It was a long frustrating wait at times but I am glad its over for us now. Our best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
more...
house about a Buddha tattoo are
karanp25
07-14 06:49 PM
7/13 LUD is inconclusive. There's a separate thread on IV discussing this where EB-2 folks have seen a 07/13 LUD w/o AC-21. Do you remember seeing a change in your I-140 LUD after approval in 2006 and before last week when they generated your RFE?
if there was a LUD, this is a high possibility that your previous employer revoked I-140.
This RFE can not be generated out of the blues. Using H-1B Xfr instead of EAD has absolutely nothing to do with validity of your AC-21. At least i am not aware of any correlation between the two.
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
if there was a LUD, this is a high possibility that your previous employer revoked I-140.
This RFE can not be generated out of the blues. Using H-1B Xfr instead of EAD has absolutely nothing to do with validity of your AC-21. At least i am not aware of any correlation between the two.
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
tattoo Buddha Tattoo by *DarkJadey on
dpp
07-09 03:53 PM
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
Everybody knows they didn't broke the law, but the way they followed is wrong.
I saw somebody suing her company because her colleagues are using perfumes. If this kind of US, then why should we leave them for this disaster.
What they broke is "They need to give prior notice in advance". They cannot give one-hour or one-min notice. They haven't given one-min notice also. It is outrageous. So, please don't say that they didn't broke any law.
Do you know what does it mean by notice? It should be given well in advance if you want to convey something.
They completely broke all those ethical laws.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
Everybody knows they didn't broke the law, but the way they followed is wrong.
I saw somebody suing her company because her colleagues are using perfumes. If this kind of US, then why should we leave them for this disaster.
What they broke is "They need to give prior notice in advance". They cannot give one-hour or one-min notice. They haven't given one-min notice also. It is outrageous. So, please don't say that they didn't broke any law.
Do you know what does it mean by notice? It should be given well in advance if you want to convey something.
They completely broke all those ethical laws.
more...
pictures Tattoo Buddha Tablelight
dilber
04-23 08:33 PM
Hearty Congratulations Googler. Your Information did give me some thing to analize for a long while. I will miss them. Have a very good time.
dresses pictures uddha tattoo buddha
skd
09-18 12:18 PM
Those smart people are not in charge. The people in charge were saying everything is fine and go do shopping
No body saw this coming, then how can you trust those people again that things will be fine in 2 years or so.
As I said No body saw this coming , So we don't know if we have seen the bottom yet or not.
No body saw this coming, then how can you trust those people again that things will be fine in 2 years or so.
As I said No body saw this coming , So we don't know if we have seen the bottom yet or not.
more...
makeup Buddha Tattoo Design On Back
kutra
07-21 10:03 AM
once you get past the I-140, the typical reasons for denial of I-485 are some criminal background, out of status >180 days, mistakes on forms etc.
IMO a simple case would be someone who:
- has never changed employers
- was employed with a large US corporation which is more likely to have paid him his salary every month (as opposed to a 3-4 person company where getting hold of the W-2 is the only way to confirm).
- was never denied any application (change of status / entry to US)
- has clear medical records
- has clear documents related to birth certificate
Complicated cases are when:
- someone has repeatedly changed and employers since entering the US. The IO will need to make sure status was maintained throughout all those transitions.
- some document was not submitted, or not submitted with transalations/affidavits etc. Commonly birth certificate issues.
You are correct. Unfortuantely, they are not looking for these "ripe" or "low hanging fruits" cases in a FIFO order. It can be highly exasperating when a "ripe" case with a March 2006 PD gets approved when "ripe" cases with PDs earlier than 2003 are languishing! That really makes the whole system even more unjust.
IMO a simple case would be someone who:
- has never changed employers
- was employed with a large US corporation which is more likely to have paid him his salary every month (as opposed to a 3-4 person company where getting hold of the W-2 is the only way to confirm).
- was never denied any application (change of status / entry to US)
- has clear medical records
- has clear documents related to birth certificate
Complicated cases are when:
- someone has repeatedly changed and employers since entering the US. The IO will need to make sure status was maintained throughout all those transitions.
- some document was not submitted, or not submitted with transalations/affidavits etc. Commonly birth certificate issues.
You are correct. Unfortuantely, they are not looking for these "ripe" or "low hanging fruits" cases in a FIFO order. It can be highly exasperating when a "ripe" case with a March 2006 PD gets approved when "ripe" cases with PDs earlier than 2003 are languishing! That really makes the whole system even more unjust.
girlfriend Hot Tattoos 2011
Jerrome
07-13 12:38 PM
If your guess true, it is good for me.. My PD is 2006 April with RD of July 31st 2007 in TSC with 140 approved. :-)
hairstyles Buddha. Tattoo by KHAN
HV000
03-18 03:33 PM
Now with April VB out. Any chance of EB2 India moving further another 2 years to DEC 2005 Before October 2008?? Are there a lot of EB2 - INDIA applicants between DEC 03 - DEC 05??
senthil1
12-26 07:21 PM
If old employer revokes I140 then the result will be unpredictable. But it is upto INS to decide. Only those who had similar experience can tell clearly about this. Or a Lawyer can give better idea
Thanks for the reply, if old employer revokes I-140 while the other employer is still working on LC+I-140, Will this creates any problem for me?
-Thanks,
Thanks for the reply, if old employer revokes I-140 while the other employer is still working on LC+I-140, Will this creates any problem for me?
-Thanks,
gcnirvana
08-03 02:55 PM
abhijitp,
Thanks for the update and good to know that we will get an RFE and not a rejection for our EVL.
But on (2), what if we already have an A# from our approved I-140? Is there any other way to know that our application has been accepted??
According to the person I spoke to:
1. I will be issued an RFE if my AOS packet did not contain the EVL
2. Once the A# is issued, that means the application has been accepted, so no outright rejection can happen, however RFEs can be issued at a later date.
Thanks for the update and good to know that we will get an RFE and not a rejection for our EVL.
But on (2), what if we already have an A# from our approved I-140? Is there any other way to know that our application has been accepted??
According to the person I spoke to:
1. I will be issued an RFE if my AOS packet did not contain the EVL
2. Once the A# is issued, that means the application has been accepted, so no outright rejection can happen, however RFEs can be issued at a later date.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar