chicago60607
09-17 02:20 PM
Seems like Zoe is loosing patience. She is starting to accept a lot of amendments and is some how trying get it wrapped up.
wallpaper pics of music note tattoos.
vga_1977
04-18 11:36 AM
Hi All,
Thank you all who gave me valuable suggestions.
I would like to say few things for the rest of the posts, this debate will never end. Every person have their own opinions. I am trying to do my best to pursue my career. I don't think this is wrong. I have seen all kinds of people in my past 13 years experience. We cannot judge any person just by looking at experience/education or what ever... . This is my just my personal opinion.
Once again thank you all who gave me valuable suggestions.
-vga
Thank you all who gave me valuable suggestions.
I would like to say few things for the rest of the posts, this debate will never end. Every person have their own opinions. I am trying to do my best to pursue my career. I don't think this is wrong. I have seen all kinds of people in my past 13 years experience. We cannot judge any person just by looking at experience/education or what ever... . This is my just my personal opinion.
Once again thank you all who gave me valuable suggestions.
-vga
B3NKobe
06-05 07:23 PM
STOP SPAMMING MY THREAD!!
2011 General, Music, tattoos
hypersphere
03-09 11:09 AM
We absolutely must make all forums accseible to registered members only and,
- Non paying members will see a pop-up screen reminding them that they must contribute.
- Pop ups reappear every so many minutes to discourgae (or encourage) non paying idle members
- Maintaining registarion requires logging in every x days
I enforce upon me a rule that every time I open my mouth here, I will contribute 20$ beginign with this mail.
- Non paying members will see a pop-up screen reminding them that they must contribute.
- Pop ups reappear every so many minutes to discourgae (or encourage) non paying idle members
- Maintaining registarion requires logging in every x days
I enforce upon me a rule that every time I open my mouth here, I will contribute 20$ beginign with this mail.
more...
pappu
11-16 12:34 PM
PAPPU,
I got a response from the dowjones guy .Mark.Boslet@dowjones.com
I will write to him.
On a side note, It appears that false propaganda is being spread about our taxes and SS contributions we make to raise more anti feelings about us.
To the contrary we contribute to the SS coffers without making use of it. We need to counter this.
Thanks pls follow up with him. more people writing to reporters will help convert a suggestion into a printable Article
I got a response from the dowjones guy .Mark.Boslet@dowjones.com
I will write to him.
On a side note, It appears that false propaganda is being spread about our taxes and SS contributions we make to raise more anti feelings about us.
To the contrary we contribute to the SS coffers without making use of it. We need to counter this.
Thanks pls follow up with him. more people writing to reporters will help convert a suggestion into a printable Article
gk_2000
04-22 09:17 PM
Cmon dude. We expect a better example to back up.
The example you state is a violation of anyone's civil rights...leave alone an immigrant.
No one is raping you by imposing a per-country limit on your green card application.
Congress used the power given to them by the Constitution to frame Immigration laws and they created a formula for regulation. Per-country limit is that formula which they had every right to create in order to uphold the balance of immigration in their country. Getting a GC is not anyone's right..its a privelege bestowed based on the applicant meeting certain criteria which includes quotas, as per the country's laws. There is NO civil rights impact. You are getting your green card in the end...only problem is they are making you wait 10 years because of that formula. But none of your civil rights are being impinged upon. So we should work to change flawed law rather than try to muddle the issue with civil rights. No matter what extreme example you give, you will still never be able to prove that your civil rights were impinged because you are having to wait for 10 years in a legal queue while your application is pending.
Don't get caught up trying to defend a stance no matter how irrelevant it may be. Its better we focus our time and effort on more achievable and valid provisions.
Good Luck to you.
Ok bye....... until next time :)
The example you state is a violation of anyone's civil rights...leave alone an immigrant.
No one is raping you by imposing a per-country limit on your green card application.
Congress used the power given to them by the Constitution to frame Immigration laws and they created a formula for regulation. Per-country limit is that formula which they had every right to create in order to uphold the balance of immigration in their country. Getting a GC is not anyone's right..its a privelege bestowed based on the applicant meeting certain criteria which includes quotas, as per the country's laws. There is NO civil rights impact. You are getting your green card in the end...only problem is they are making you wait 10 years because of that formula. But none of your civil rights are being impinged upon. So we should work to change flawed law rather than try to muddle the issue with civil rights. No matter what extreme example you give, you will still never be able to prove that your civil rights were impinged because you are having to wait for 10 years in a legal queue while your application is pending.
Don't get caught up trying to defend a stance no matter how irrelevant it may be. Its better we focus our time and effort on more achievable and valid provisions.
Good Luck to you.
Ok bye....... until next time :)
more...
bugsbunny
04-17 12:00 AM
You should not have gotton H1B visa in the first place, as H1b visas are for professionals and there are many professionals stuggle to get an h1b visas even after engineering degrees. In your case, IGNOU is a shame. Its worse than University of Pheonix. If you get a greencard in EB2, it will be a biggest mockery of the USCIS and department of labor.
If you believe IGNOU or Univ of Pheonix are fraudulent, Please provide proof of this and also report to USCIS.
Its not purely education that will get you H1 or GC. You also need to be skilled in your field.
You might look down on certain universities or degrees but in the end employers care more about skill and experience and so does USCIS
If you believe IGNOU or Univ of Pheonix are fraudulent, Please provide proof of this and also report to USCIS.
Its not purely education that will get you H1 or GC. You also need to be skilled in your field.
You might look down on certain universities or degrees but in the end employers care more about skill and experience and so does USCIS
2010 I like Girls. Music. Tattoos.
Praveenkumar
10-29 10:52 AM
caliguy
Could you please send me the letter that you sent to Sec. NAPOLITANO-
Thanks
Could you please send me the letter that you sent to Sec. NAPOLITANO-
Thanks
more...
black_logs
04-18 09:27 AM
Members please note your comments are highly appreciated.
hair music tattoos for girls. music
GCAmigo
02-06 12:44 PM
And for the upcoming FY 2008 I dont think it will last more than 2-3 months and will be over by the end of May, well before FY 2008 starts.
lasts even that long.. it probably will be exhausted during April itself..
lasts even that long.. it probably will be exhausted during April itself..
more...
chanduv23
04-28 08:49 PM
AC21 is a law. However, USCIS not yet published the regulation since year 2000, that binds everyone. All these memos since 2000, are internal to USCIS and not binding. They are very clear in the memo that revokation (except on fraud) of an already approved 140 by the petitioner, after 180 days of pending of 485, will not stop the approval of 485, if employee changes to similar occupation. This is just a non bining internal standard of USCIS. It does not have teeth, as it is not a public regulation. However, this internal standard can be changed by any time with/without public notice or through a regulation. Also, one should remember that, they mentioned in one of their memos that, regulation will be much tougher than memo.
Therefore, as some one is mentioned that, an approved immigrant visa pettion should be always available at the time of issuing GC. That is also a law. This law also need to be met at the time of approval of 485. Therfore AC21 and requirement for availability of approved 140 is two different and counteracting issues.
In practical situation, the employee has no control over 140 in any stage as it is employer's petition. Therefore, if employee leaves the job as per the AC21 law, employer verywell withdraw the 140 even after 180 days of 485 pending and create a situation of unavailability of approved immigrat visa petion for the employee. Therefore, in the final regulation they will make a rule that favours the employee, if everything was bonafide. It is like a aboundened spouse in family catagory.
I think, USCIS is currently taking the tough standard to weed out the consulting compaines (to put a leash on GC factories/body shoppers), as they are the one mostly abusing the EB system. Only those people working in GC factories need to worry. It may be mainly due the current economic situation. I feel thats why they are delaying the regulation. Others need not worry.
Well, 485 denials on ac21 where 140 was revoked has always been happening.
Your interpretation might be right about consulting companies but these denials not necessarily happening to people in consulting companies, they happen to anyone whose 140 was revoked.
Therefore, as some one is mentioned that, an approved immigrant visa pettion should be always available at the time of issuing GC. That is also a law. This law also need to be met at the time of approval of 485. Therfore AC21 and requirement for availability of approved 140 is two different and counteracting issues.
In practical situation, the employee has no control over 140 in any stage as it is employer's petition. Therefore, if employee leaves the job as per the AC21 law, employer verywell withdraw the 140 even after 180 days of 485 pending and create a situation of unavailability of approved immigrat visa petion for the employee. Therefore, in the final regulation they will make a rule that favours the employee, if everything was bonafide. It is like a aboundened spouse in family catagory.
I think, USCIS is currently taking the tough standard to weed out the consulting compaines (to put a leash on GC factories/body shoppers), as they are the one mostly abusing the EB system. Only those people working in GC factories need to worry. It may be mainly due the current economic situation. I feel thats why they are delaying the regulation. Others need not worry.
Well, 485 denials on ac21 where 140 was revoked has always been happening.
Your interpretation might be right about consulting companies but these denials not necessarily happening to people in consulting companies, they happen to anyone whose 140 was revoked.
hot small tattoos for girls
Immi_Chant
01-30 07:24 PM
Done. Its question # 78 as on 4.37 PM PST.
more...
house hot music tattoos men. music
hpandey
06-13 12:59 PM
Pappu,
Thanks for the post and your time!
1. "PLEASE Put your real dates in your profile" There is no provision to put dates for CP filers!! All the dates are for 485 filers.
Though it is proven time and again that CP filers are the least needed people on this forum (next to EB3 I - going by this thread), it is unfair not reserving few columns on the profile for CP filers ... It doesn't cost VISA numbers for that...
2. I have told this before but would like to repeat now... I don't contribute because there is nothing for CP filers here. VISA recapturing is the only effort that would benefit CP filers but anyway the chances of that bill passing is close to 0.
In my opinion, the biggest sufferers are people in EB3 India or China and who have opted for CP (now guys, don't start lecturing on CP vs. 485. We have heard it enough).
Hi Will Win
We all are immigrants in some way or the other standing in some line or the other. We need to be together . What IV is trying is to fix the system. If something somewhere gets fixed it surely benefits the immigrants and brings hope for other things that need to be fixed. Don't you think if the EB system here was fixed, IV would have been able to focus on CP ?
We all need to stick together to help each other.
Thanks
Thanks for the post and your time!
1. "PLEASE Put your real dates in your profile" There is no provision to put dates for CP filers!! All the dates are for 485 filers.
Though it is proven time and again that CP filers are the least needed people on this forum (next to EB3 I - going by this thread), it is unfair not reserving few columns on the profile for CP filers ... It doesn't cost VISA numbers for that...
2. I have told this before but would like to repeat now... I don't contribute because there is nothing for CP filers here. VISA recapturing is the only effort that would benefit CP filers but anyway the chances of that bill passing is close to 0.
In my opinion, the biggest sufferers are people in EB3 India or China and who have opted for CP (now guys, don't start lecturing on CP vs. 485. We have heard it enough).
Hi Will Win
We all are immigrants in some way or the other standing in some line or the other. We need to be together . What IV is trying is to fix the system. If something somewhere gets fixed it surely benefits the immigrants and brings hope for other things that need to be fixed. Don't you think if the EB system here was fixed, IV would have been able to focus on CP ?
We all need to stick together to help each other.
Thanks
tattoo music tattoos for girls. music
polapragada
04-26 06:45 PM
We dont have to fight on H1B vs L1B. But the fact is employees with L1 are suffering more then H1Bs.
YES santhan...
BTW I am H1B :D
YES santhan...
BTW I am H1B :D
more...
pictures Music Tattoos For Girls;
cessua
08-01 07:13 PM
Nixstor,
It is important to do the homework and choose the school that fits your needs, if you want to get into finance or marketing or... go to a school that is know to be good in that field, you will still meet many people in other fields but the majority will be in the field you are interested on.
BusinessWeek website is good for reseach, but don't limit yourself to that.
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/04/index.html
Getting accepted is the most difficult part. Once you are in you can pretty much say you have the MBA. The GMAT is literally a pain, many of the questions are tricky and you need to learn the tricks.
Try to go to a name school, you are investing enough money not to go to a school that is not going to help you move a step ahead (through the name of the school or through the people you are going to meet). I have a friend that goes to a no-name school and they just accept anyone so the friends you make are definitely not that ambitious.
NOTE: the CEO of my company (6K employees) got his MBA at Wharton (he's a PhD as well) and he hired as CTO one of his friends from school.
It is important to do the homework and choose the school that fits your needs, if you want to get into finance or marketing or... go to a school that is know to be good in that field, you will still meet many people in other fields but the majority will be in the field you are interested on.
BusinessWeek website is good for reseach, but don't limit yourself to that.
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/04/index.html
Getting accepted is the most difficult part. Once you are in you can pretty much say you have the MBA. The GMAT is literally a pain, many of the questions are tricky and you need to learn the tricks.
Try to go to a name school, you are investing enough money not to go to a school that is not going to help you move a step ahead (through the name of the school or through the people you are going to meet). I have a friend that goes to a no-name school and they just accept anyone so the friends you make are definitely not that ambitious.
NOTE: the CEO of my company (6K employees) got his MBA at Wharton (he's a PhD as well) and he hired as CTO one of his friends from school.
dresses makeup music tattoos for girls
nixstor
06-03 11:22 AM
Great find.
We need to get more support from the right/republican side. Please call the republican members.
We need to get more support from the right/republican side. Please call the republican members.
more...
makeup 2010 music tattoos for girls.
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
girlfriend music tattoos for girls,
fasterthanlight�
05-31 05:30 PM
Theres a bunch of gangs at my school, one of them wanted me to join 'cause im pretty good with a bow staff...
Ok, enough napolean dynamite quotations for now... ben specifically asked for no spam!
Ok, enough napolean dynamite quotations for now... ben specifically asked for no spam!
hairstyles Music Tattoos For Girls;
don_don
03-16 03:13 PM
Best bet is to provide them with Company tax returns of the most recent year and send them pay stubs...these are the required docs to prove ability to pay,my lawyer used these and was successful
GCAmigo
02-05 05:48 PM
bottom line is any relief to anyone will be a BIG achievement.. thanks logiclife for a CLEAR statement..
Gravitation
07-11 06:16 PM
They either have to reject the application or provide the receipt notice. Cannot hold the applications without any actions for long time.
You really think they're in any kind of rule-following mood lately?
You really think they're in any kind of rule-following mood lately?
No comments:
Post a Comment