poorslumdog
08-25 03:18 PM
Greencardfever5, first of all I don't think you needed to apologize. Everyone has their own schedules and priorities, and just because you did not spend enough time on IV, does not mean you are not welcome here.
.
Do you mean to say other people who spend time, energy and money do not have any other priority or work and sitting idle. Everyone has priority other than spending time in IV. By the way what happened to the Op's priority now. There is no priority now and wants to spend in IV. Do you think its fair...?
.
Do you mean to say other people who spend time, energy and money do not have any other priority or work and sitting idle. Everyone has priority other than spending time in IV. By the way what happened to the Op's priority now. There is no priority now and wants to spend in IV. Do you think its fair...?
wallpaper wiz khalifa amber rose
InTheMoment
08-04 01:34 PM
Please refer to this detailed experience on SS update after GC:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20610
Also there is no need to surrender your old SS card or even show it. (maybe good to just keep it with you if asked.)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20610
Also there is no need to surrender your old SS card or even show it. (maybe good to just keep it with you if asked.)
sameet
04-14 03:20 PM
With AC21, any employer with same/similar job description as in LC, can sponsor you (meaning promise to employ you upon your getting getting GC, and you agreeing to be their employee). In the meantime, you may be working for anybody, but not working for the sponsoring employer, might raise doubts of your and sponsoring employer's real intentions, resulting in RFE/interview etc.
Six month rule is just a general guideline. Intent behind this is that sponsoring was genuine, not just to get you GC. Circumstances can always change, before or soon after your getting GC for which you might want to keep documentation, just in case.
Let me get this straight:
I have a pending 485 through employer A and then switch my H1B to Employer B. In that case, if I file AC21 through Employer B as long as the position is same/similar (meaning in the same classification with similar responsibilities) will it cause any issues in getting a green card? Note that I will already be working for Employer B when I get the GC.
Just wondering if this situation would raise doubts in the IO's mind.
Six month rule is just a general guideline. Intent behind this is that sponsoring was genuine, not just to get you GC. Circumstances can always change, before or soon after your getting GC for which you might want to keep documentation, just in case.
Let me get this straight:
I have a pending 485 through employer A and then switch my H1B to Employer B. In that case, if I file AC21 through Employer B as long as the position is same/similar (meaning in the same classification with similar responsibilities) will it cause any issues in getting a green card? Note that I will already be working for Employer B when I get the GC.
Just wondering if this situation would raise doubts in the IO's mind.
2011 wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo.
ChainReaction
07-31 12:23 PM
I have a question, if H4 use EAD for employment and is allowed to keep her H4 status , how come a H1b who still work full time for his sponsor employer looses his H1B status when he finds a part-time job using EAD ?
more...
RDB
05-06 02:25 AM
Folks,
I received a Transfer notice today for both me and my wife suggesting that our I-485 petitions have been transferred to the local USCIS office. Below is the exact message.
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On April 30, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LOS ANGELES, CA location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our LOS ANGELES, CA location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
From what I could find through browsing through various forums is that usually one ends up getting an interview when this happens. Does anybody have any other thoughts? or has anybody received a similar notice recently?
I received a Transfer notice today for both me and my wife suggesting that our I-485 petitions have been transferred to the local USCIS office. Below is the exact message.
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On April 30, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LOS ANGELES, CA location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our LOS ANGELES, CA location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
From what I could find through browsing through various forums is that usually one ends up getting an interview when this happens. Does anybody have any other thoughts? or has anybody received a similar notice recently?
chanduv23
11-15 10:19 AM
Still only 6 people have courage to speak out. What is running in your veins, water?
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
I sent u a PM
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
I sent u a PM
more...
immi_enthu
12-28 10:07 AM
I have three friends waiting for I - 140 approval whose date are between Feb 16 - 22, 2007 and all are still waiting for approvals. online status show case pending. And dates in NSC shows April 6, 2007.
This is not the first time. It's so frustrating . Well, that's USCIS for you.
This is not the first time. It's so frustrating . Well, that's USCIS for you.
2010 wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
h1jail
08-08 09:29 PM
Hello,
I did not see any posts regarding "1 year H1 extension approval when filed for 3 years". If this discussion is already in place, please point me to appropriate thread so that I could close this one.
I applied for 3 years H1 extension on 6/26/2007 with approved I-140. My priority date (EB3 -Sep 2003) was not current on 6/26/2007 when I applied for 3 year extension. I got an approval notice today which is valid for only one year. I want to know if this is an error from USCIS so that I could ask to ammend 2 more years.
Thanks!
I did not see any posts regarding "1 year H1 extension approval when filed for 3 years". If this discussion is already in place, please point me to appropriate thread so that I could close this one.
I applied for 3 years H1 extension on 6/26/2007 with approved I-140. My priority date (EB3 -Sep 2003) was not current on 6/26/2007 when I applied for 3 year extension. I got an approval notice today which is valid for only one year. I want to know if this is an error from USCIS so that I could ask to ammend 2 more years.
Thanks!
more...
santiwar
07-21 09:38 PM
If John Lennon was alive, i am quite sure he would be a member of IV. considering how much paint he was put through to get a green card...
For those who have seen the documentary " U.S. vs John Lennon" documentary will certainly know what i am talking about.
His way of protesting was actually quite similar to ours. He was a self proclaimed "Peacenik". He protested by laying in bed and growing his hair...
For those interested in this documentary can look for it on Google Video. Just checked, its still there. Just search for "USVSJL.avi "
"All we are saying.....is give GC a chance"
Peace out!
For those who have seen the documentary " U.S. vs John Lennon" documentary will certainly know what i am talking about.
His way of protesting was actually quite similar to ours. He was a self proclaimed "Peacenik". He protested by laying in bed and growing his hair...
For those interested in this documentary can look for it on Google Video. Just checked, its still there. Just search for "USVSJL.avi "
"All we are saying.....is give GC a chance"
Peace out!
hair wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
piyu7444
07-03 01:59 AM
it is advisable not to leave the country while H1 extension is pending and you cannot lie to the immigration officer at the port of entry. if they take your I-94 while leaving (if going to Mexico, they generally do not take I-94) then you may have a problem reentering and you may have to wait until H1 extension is approved and then reenter using the new H1 approval.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
more...
kaisersose
04-16 03:34 PM
I thought as soon as I-140 is denied your spouse has to stop working on EAD and go out of the country to renew H4. ?
No.
Her EAD is tied to her 485 not to your 140. As long as the 485 status is pending, her EAD is valid. Even if the 485 is rejected, if it is something that can be fixed thru an MTR, then filing an MTR and changing the status back to pending is still fine. It is not necessary to stop using the EAD for that brief period.
No.
Her EAD is tied to her 485 not to your 140. As long as the 485 status is pending, her EAD is valid. Even if the 485 is rejected, if it is something that can be fixed thru an MTR, then filing an MTR and changing the status back to pending is still fine. It is not necessary to stop using the EAD for that brief period.
hot wiz and amber rose tattoo. wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo.
axp817
07-05 11:31 AM
Can these 200 please contribute to the agenda laid out by IV, instead?
thanks,
thanks,
more...
house wiz khalifa tattoos amber rose
rajivkane
05-21 09:52 AM
HI!
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
tattoo 2011 wiz khalifa amber rose
EkAurAaya
03-20 10:12 AM
if you are foreign national selling a house, 10 % of your sale price may be held in escrow account till you pay the taxes. This is the case in atleast some states. This is what your real estate lawyer might be referring to. The rest 10 % is released after you have shown proof that you have paid your taxes.
Thanks for your response... do you know what states by any chance?
Thanks for your response... do you know what states by any chance?
more...
pictures wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo on his. wiz khalifa tattoos amber rose
windycloud
07-15 05:19 PM
I have my original I94 from when I entered on F-1. And now I have the I-94 attached to my H-1B. Which one do I hand in?
dresses wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo.
pointlesswait
02-13 06:55 PM
vote por favor, for IV ;-)
more...
makeup Amber Rose and Wiz Khalifa a
immi_2006
10-14 03:27 PM
Take it from ICICI Lombard Insurance. They have tied up with United Health Care. For 6 months it comes to some where around 10,000 to 15,000 rupees which is pretty cheap compared to US vistor insurance.
Only condition is insurance should be taken before you start from india.
SRI used to be good when they were SRI. Now it is merged with Sevencorners and they don't process claims well.
Indianetwork insurance is quite common with Indians but they take more than 5 months to process claims and they pay part of the claims.
Only condition is insurance should be taken before you start from india.
SRI used to be good when they were SRI. Now it is merged with Sevencorners and they don't process claims well.
Indianetwork insurance is quite common with Indians but they take more than 5 months to process claims and they pay part of the claims.
girlfriend wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
lazycis
02-11 02:04 PM
You are right! Some people did not notice that moe is not illegal. But some people did notice the moe is an anti-immigrant disguising someone he is not. moe wanted to hear exactly what you told him. Now he will bash legal immigration saying all legal immigrants are actually illegals. Please try to use your brains, maybe just a couple of times every few years.
.
How about using your heart? I feel sorry for you...
.
How about using your heart? I feel sorry for you...
hairstyles wiz khalifa and amber rose
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAUSvk6ISBKasgICikzTvIUw-CogTfAPBq7WEULQo075FLWuOEv-xzH8TtmANWtIzTNXnL1FX9R3-CG14rkfWJ4DkGAeh-lXZq-TvitNcAN0t7g_C93aV1ob-ZwoDrS9Q2YlNizWtomB4/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAUSvk6ISBKasgICikzTvIUw-CogTfAPBq7WEULQo075FLWuOEv-xzH8TtmANWtIzTNXnL1FX9R3-CG14rkfWJ4DkGAeh-lXZq-TvitNcAN0t7g_C93aV1ob-ZwoDrS9Q2YlNizWtomB4/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAUSvk6ISBKasgICikzTvIUw-CogTfAPBq7WEULQo075FLWuOEv-xzH8TtmANWtIzTNXnL1FX9R3-CG14rkfWJ4DkGAeh-lXZq-TvitNcAN0t7g_C93aV1ob-ZwoDrS9Q2YlNizWtomB4/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAUSvk6ISBKasgICikzTvIUw-CogTfAPBq7WEULQo075FLWuOEv-xzH8TtmANWtIzTNXnL1FX9R3-CG14rkfWJ4DkGAeh-lXZq-TvitNcAN0t7g_C93aV1ob-ZwoDrS9Q2YlNizWtomB4/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
go_guy123
01-04 10:30 AM
This decade was lost because the Hispanic caucus was hell bent on Comprehensive approach...all or nothing model...and therefore got nothing.
sush
08-21 11:33 AM
not sure which center my attorney filed through but on the back of the check, it mentioned St. Paul MN
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar