Googler
07-18 08:31 PM
Clockwork and others please note that the pdf version of the Standard Operating Procedure is from 9/28/01 -- a lot has changed since.
njboy
03-07 06:36 AM
it would be difficult to show how a french degree is useful in your current job. Many companies get h1-b approved by showing a "business necessity"..ie, they need travel agents who speak a certain Indian language etc. Doing an MBA definitely will help, but not with the current job description. They are going to ask why the job requires an MBA?Ofcourse if you got a job teaching French, h1-b visa will be granted.
greyhair
07-01 07:43 AM
Recently I started looking other options in India, Britain, Canada and Australia.
Here is what I found just in last 1 week.
Britain puts new cap on non-European high skilled immigration
United Kingdom, Immigration, Coalition Government Announces Temporary Migration Cap - Newland Chase - 30/06/2010, Government & Public Sector, Labour and Employment, Immigration (http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=104198)
Non-EU immigration to the UK: the statistics visualised | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/26/non-eu-immigration-uk-statistics#zoomed-picture)
The federal government is seeking a limit on the total number of applications for Canada immigration to 20,000 annually
Canada to welcome high skilled and wealthy immigrants | Canada Updates (http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/canada-welcome-high-skilled-and-wealthy-immigrants)
Australia announced new visa ruler to target Indians
New visa rules not targeting Indians: Oz envoy - World News - IBNLive (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/new-visa-rules-not-targeting-indians-oz-envoy/125603-2.html)
This may be the result of global economic slowdown. But China and India are allowing more immigration. Now high skill immigration is a new measure of future economic growth.
Here is what I found just in last 1 week.
Britain puts new cap on non-European high skilled immigration
United Kingdom, Immigration, Coalition Government Announces Temporary Migration Cap - Newland Chase - 30/06/2010, Government & Public Sector, Labour and Employment, Immigration (http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=104198)
Non-EU immigration to the UK: the statistics visualised | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/26/non-eu-immigration-uk-statistics#zoomed-picture)
The federal government is seeking a limit on the total number of applications for Canada immigration to 20,000 annually
Canada to welcome high skilled and wealthy immigrants | Canada Updates (http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/canada-welcome-high-skilled-and-wealthy-immigrants)
Australia announced new visa ruler to target Indians
New visa rules not targeting Indians: Oz envoy - World News - IBNLive (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/new-visa-rules-not-targeting-indians-oz-envoy/125603-2.html)
This may be the result of global economic slowdown. But China and India are allowing more immigration. Now high skill immigration is a new measure of future economic growth.
ajay
01-26 12:17 PM
I am in the same boat and need to get my address updated. So what I understand from above posts is that there is no need to do paper based AR11 and can just do it online for I-485, EAD as well as AP, right?? Once done, just keep printouts for records , thats it???
Can someone please confirm.
YOu can do everything online.
Can someone please confirm.
YOu can do everything online.
more...
go_guy123
05-17 07:09 PM
how convenient, she didnt need to pay or wait for CIR.
Some people are only too powerful and influential that others
Asylum is lot more easier. In fact citizens of Cuba just have to show up in US and they get GC. GC is infact easier for people from China as there is always an option to file for Asylum given the communist govt.
In this case, though Obama said that course of law will follw. But ofcourse USCIS wont
pursue the case agressively and give up ("throw the match") and not go for appeals etc.
Some people are only too powerful and influential that others
Asylum is lot more easier. In fact citizens of Cuba just have to show up in US and they get GC. GC is infact easier for people from China as there is always an option to file for Asylum given the communist govt.
In this case, though Obama said that course of law will follw. But ofcourse USCIS wont
pursue the case agressively and give up ("throw the match") and not go for appeals etc.
wandmaker
12-31 12:30 PM
hi All,
i'm new to this forum.please advice on my situation.
I was on F1 earlier and now I am on H1b from jan 2007.
I am the first person for whom company filed H1B and got approved.
I am the only person on my companies payroll and only person on their H1B. Is that going to be a probelm if i go for H1B stamping to mexico?
If i go for stamping to mexico, What sort of questions i will be asked?
Please help me ...
Thanks
It is very risk to go for stamping, any consular post with only one person working for the company. If you wait for an year or so, company should be able to back you up with enough financial paper work your stamping. Additionally, you will also have documents to prove continuous employment (pay stubs, w2 and tax returns). Also PIMS verification has begun at all consular posts, resulting at lease 4-7 business days of delay in visa issuance. If I were you, I would wait for a while and create enough documentation for successful stamping. My 2 cents - decision is your personal choice.
i'm new to this forum.please advice on my situation.
I was on F1 earlier and now I am on H1b from jan 2007.
I am the first person for whom company filed H1B and got approved.
I am the only person on my companies payroll and only person on their H1B. Is that going to be a probelm if i go for H1B stamping to mexico?
If i go for stamping to mexico, What sort of questions i will be asked?
Please help me ...
Thanks
It is very risk to go for stamping, any consular post with only one person working for the company. If you wait for an year or so, company should be able to back you up with enough financial paper work your stamping. Additionally, you will also have documents to prove continuous employment (pay stubs, w2 and tax returns). Also PIMS verification has begun at all consular posts, resulting at lease 4-7 business days of delay in visa issuance. If I were you, I would wait for a while and create enough documentation for successful stamping. My 2 cents - decision is your personal choice.
more...
saint_2010
07-11 05:21 PM
hi saint, nothing against you, i wonder what is the freakin logic USCIS uses to decide on 2 year EAD approval, here i am with pd not being current for atleast next 2-3 years (given the halt of eb3-I), 2nd ead extn, in my 8th year of h1b, i got a one year EAD extn, where as a eb2 person gets a 1 year validity...i only wish we can know whats going in the minds of these decision makers..
Non taken my friend. I was surprised myself to see 2 yr extns. I think they have some wierd fuzzy logic on approvals..which is beyond our intelligent minds:cool:.
Non taken my friend. I was surprised myself to see 2 yr extns. I think they have some wierd fuzzy logic on approvals..which is beyond our intelligent minds:cool:.
MeraNoAayega
05-18 06:54 PM
Does any one happen to know how long will the court take to decide if it want's to hear the case & then to actually issue a decision?
more...
va_dude
05-07 12:52 PM
it doesn't boil down to who you trust more. Both opinions have its merits.
But you should base your decision on whether or not you have truly ported to a job with similar duties and if you have the paperwork to prove it. If you have all this, then evn if you do get RFE its not a bad thing, since you can prove that you did no wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
But you should base your decision on whether or not you have truly ported to a job with similar duties and if you have the paperwork to prove it. If you have all this, then evn if you do get RFE its not a bad thing, since you can prove that you did no wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
chanduv23
09-14 10:22 AM
Cause i cannot make it to the rally.
And why not?
And why not?
more...
reddy_h
08-20 09:57 PM
just ignore H-1. you need not worry as you filed AOS. you need the H-1 approval only if you want to keep maintaining H-1 status by filing H-1 transfer with your new employer otherwise you can just ignore the H-1 you already filed. if you still want to revoke the H-1 petition, only your employer can do it as it is your company's petition.
BharatPremi
11-30 06:05 PM
Guys,
If one IV member moves from State A to B, what would be the process of transferring membership to state chapter?
Will it merely be a deleting datbase record from one state and adding it to another state? Or would it be again filling up survey to new state chapter..?
Thanks.
If one IV member moves from State A to B, what would be the process of transferring membership to state chapter?
Will it merely be a deleting datbase record from one state and adding it to another state? Or would it be again filling up survey to new state chapter..?
Thanks.
more...
gnutin
05-05 03:46 PM
Thanks to everyone who responded. So in summary, it looks like:
* I can own a business on H1B.
* I cannot take any proceeds/profits from the business, but can use it to grow it further.
* I can work for the business as long as I don't take any money from it.
- Can a guru please confirm this?
* The business can buy me equipment and accessories to work.
As everyone suggested, I will consult a CPA and immigration lawyer to confirm but wanted to get some initial idea.
* I can own a business on H1B.
* I cannot take any proceeds/profits from the business, but can use it to grow it further.
* I can work for the business as long as I don't take any money from it.
- Can a guru please confirm this?
* The business can buy me equipment and accessories to work.
As everyone suggested, I will consult a CPA and immigration lawyer to confirm but wanted to get some initial idea.
talduk
March 24th, 2005, 01:21 AM
Hi all,
Few days ago I purchased a new D-100 in Hong Kong. After taking the first few shots, I encountered a problem. When pressing the shutter it seems that the shutter is opening but stays open and woun't close. An "Error" notice appear and only after several times of pressing the shutter button it sounds like it is closing. After such few times, I pressed it again - trying to get a photo, the shutter opened up and didn't close. The "Error" notice is up again and now nothing seems to help, not even shutting the camera.
Please please advice. :(
Few days ago I purchased a new D-100 in Hong Kong. After taking the first few shots, I encountered a problem. When pressing the shutter it seems that the shutter is opening but stays open and woun't close. An "Error" notice appear and only after several times of pressing the shutter button it sounds like it is closing. After such few times, I pressed it again - trying to get a photo, the shutter opened up and didn't close. The "Error" notice is up again and now nothing seems to help, not even shutting the camera.
Please please advice. :(
more...
shana04
03-08 12:23 PM
My PD of JAN 27 05 became current with the March bulletin. While folks from TSC got GCs from March 2nd itself, NSC seemed to have little action.
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
rimzhim
02-12 11:43 AM
I am in Philadelphia so i would assume Vermont center. Is that a fair assumption, coz i have a previous I-140 and to the best of my knowledge it had gone to the Vermont center back then.
However back in the day there was no premium processing for I-140 so things may have changed :(
Has anyone in the North east USA recently received any approvals from the Vermont center?
140s are done in Nebraska or Texas now.
However back in the day there was no premium processing for I-140 so things may have changed :(
Has anyone in the North east USA recently received any approvals from the Vermont center?
140s are done in Nebraska or Texas now.
more...
butterchicken
04-28 02:10 PM
DOL Proposed Legislation for Labor Certification
In an attempt to clamp down on fraud in the labor certification application process, the Department of Labor (�DOL�) has proposed regulations, which would impact both pre-PERM and PERM filings. The proposal includes requiring employers to pay for all costs and fees associated with a labor certification application. The penalties for violating this proposal include denial of the labor certification, revocation, debarment, or any combination. Debarment means an employer can not file a labor certification application for up to three years.
A labor certification application would also have a limited validity period. Currently a labor certification application is valid without limitation unless it is revoked or withdrawn. Under the proposed regulations, an employer must file an immigrant petition with the CIS within 45 days of the labor certification application approval. For applications which have already been certified, an employer must file within 45 days of the enactment of final rule implementing the regulations. If the labor certification application is not filed within this timeframe, it will expire and can not be used to support an immigrant petition.
The proposed regulations also prohibit substitution. Substitution occurs when an employer has an approved labor certification application, but the individual that was originally listed in the labor certification application is no longer being sponsored. An employer could �substitute� a new employee into the labor certification application if the new employee met the minimum requirements listed in the labor certification application at the time the application was initially filed. Concerned that substitution encouraged fraud, DOL proposes to eliminate substitution.
Finally, the proposed rule prohibits a labor certification application to be sold, bartered or purchased. If an individual or entity is found to have engaged in this kind of transaction, the labor certification application can be denied, revoked, debarment, or any combination.
In an attempt to clamp down on fraud in the labor certification application process, the Department of Labor (�DOL�) has proposed regulations, which would impact both pre-PERM and PERM filings. The proposal includes requiring employers to pay for all costs and fees associated with a labor certification application. The penalties for violating this proposal include denial of the labor certification, revocation, debarment, or any combination. Debarment means an employer can not file a labor certification application for up to three years.
A labor certification application would also have a limited validity period. Currently a labor certification application is valid without limitation unless it is revoked or withdrawn. Under the proposed regulations, an employer must file an immigrant petition with the CIS within 45 days of the labor certification application approval. For applications which have already been certified, an employer must file within 45 days of the enactment of final rule implementing the regulations. If the labor certification application is not filed within this timeframe, it will expire and can not be used to support an immigrant petition.
The proposed regulations also prohibit substitution. Substitution occurs when an employer has an approved labor certification application, but the individual that was originally listed in the labor certification application is no longer being sponsored. An employer could �substitute� a new employee into the labor certification application if the new employee met the minimum requirements listed in the labor certification application at the time the application was initially filed. Concerned that substitution encouraged fraud, DOL proposes to eliminate substitution.
Finally, the proposed rule prohibits a labor certification application to be sold, bartered or purchased. If an individual or entity is found to have engaged in this kind of transaction, the labor certification application can be denied, revoked, debarment, or any combination.
FredG
June 25th, 2006, 09:01 PM
I suspect you're in the majority, Nik. I figured the baby jogger would provide sufficient cover. :)
mkyaj
03-24 12:19 PM
My H1-B expires in Oct-2009. So my wife's H4 visa & I-94 are valid till Oct-2009.
I am applying for my H1 extension. I am attaching my wife's H4, I-94 with the extension.
She may have to go to INDIA in June and come back within a month. As she gets a new I-94 which will be valid for 3-4 months till Oct-2009 & her old I-94 is sent for extension, do i have to do anything else after that?
How does it work? Did anyone went through similar scenario?
Please advice.
Thanks.
I am applying for my H1 extension. I am attaching my wife's H4, I-94 with the extension.
She may have to go to INDIA in June and come back within a month. As she gets a new I-94 which will be valid for 3-4 months till Oct-2009 & her old I-94 is sent for extension, do i have to do anything else after that?
How does it work? Did anyone went through similar scenario?
Please advice.
Thanks.
gc28262
07-30 07:07 AM
Success Story: Showing a Valid Employer-Employee Relationship (http://shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationaugust2010.html#5)
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
deekay
06-21 11:57 AM
I came back to US on Mar 30 2008 using advance parole. The officer wrote on I-94 , paroled until Mar 29, 2008 (I am assuming its an oversight).
I didnt detect the oversight till yesterday. What my current status and what actions should I take to rectify the error.
I am still working for my employer that sponsored the H1B which is valid till Feb 2009, although the stamp on the passport was valid only till Feb 2008
Thanks
I didnt detect the oversight till yesterday. What my current status and what actions should I take to rectify the error.
I am still working for my employer that sponsored the H1B which is valid till Feb 2009, although the stamp on the passport was valid only till Feb 2008
Thanks
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar