arc
04-14 09:50 AM
You know these reporting back, reistating the status, etc takes lots of effort, money and time. I hate this kind of things. Why the hell we should pay for somebody's mistake?
On a side note:
If someone returns this kind of mistake-GC, then what will happen to the visa number? Will it get reclaimed and reused or go wasted?
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
On a side note:
If someone returns this kind of mistake-GC, then what will happen to the visa number? Will it get reclaimed and reused or go wasted?
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
meher
12-24 12:56 PM
So i should report the pay for sep to dec in substitute W2 though i have not received it from my employer right and also report to DOL for the same.
indio0617
05-02 03:43 PM
Well, good lawyer or bad lawyer, everyone here knows, that they never reveal the true story of what and where the company messed up.
I want to just find out that, if I transfer to a new company with 14 months left on that 6 year limit, do I have enough time to transfer H1, file brand new Perm, file a brand new I 140 , get approved, and get three year extention instead of on year? a small window for timing here. Should I stick with the same company?
Any input is appreciated.
thanks.....
Yes. You definitely have time to do all that. PERM should take max 4 months total time, I-140 via premium processing will not take more than 2 weeks. So, you need not worry about the timeline at all.
If you want to move to a new employer go for it.
I want to just find out that, if I transfer to a new company with 14 months left on that 6 year limit, do I have enough time to transfer H1, file brand new Perm, file a brand new I 140 , get approved, and get three year extention instead of on year? a small window for timing here. Should I stick with the same company?
Any input is appreciated.
thanks.....
Yes. You definitely have time to do all that. PERM should take max 4 months total time, I-140 via premium processing will not take more than 2 weeks. So, you need not worry about the timeline at all.
If you want to move to a new employer go for it.
pradeep_s
12-20 11:01 PM
Hi Msyedy,
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
more...
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
vpgreencard
07-30 09:46 PM
The date will move to sept 2002 since this is my PD and then it will stuck for another 5 years.
more...
piyu7444
05-06 03:05 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?
To get an answer just visit this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=339084#post339084
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?
To get an answer just visit this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=339084#post339084
rockstart
09-08 10:48 AM
I tried and it worked. First time the call did not go through but second time it worked. Thanks for the info. Free is always sweet.
more...
WaitingForMyGC
06-25 11:18 AM
Thanks guys for all your replies & suggestions. Just to let you know, that I am paying for my whole GC process and I have been with this company since last 3 years. I have already completed one 2 year contract term with them and still they are asking me to sign new contract. To me, this is total blackmailing.
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
more...
ghost
02-07 11:19 AM
Please share about the discussion. Unfortunately I am unable to watch it due to proxy firewall.
Immigration Policy: Highly Skilled Workers and U.S. Competitiveness and Innovation - Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/0207_immigration.aspx)
Please contact Brookings Communications at the contact info provided for the event material.
Immigration Policy: Highly Skilled Workers and U.S. Competitiveness and Innovation - Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/0207_immigration.aspx)
Please contact Brookings Communications at the contact info provided for the event material.
like_watching_paint_dry
09-07 09:59 AM
I'm not sure how much help this would be. But I've noticed in the past that companies in India like Wipro et al apply for H1/L1 for their employees and keep the H1 around. And when the need arises, they send them over on short term work assignments (anywhere from 1 - 18 months).
Ideally for the purpose of meetings etc, they should be using the B visa, especially when they have not sponsored an immigrant petition. But in your case, you have an immigrant intent so I guess a H or L is the way to go. Please consult an attorney as I have no idea about what implications your Canadian pay setup will have over the 'pay prevailing wages during H1B presence' issue.
I dont know much about L1 but yours seems perfectly suited for an L1 and I believe L1 can have immigrant intent too. Any reason you cant go on to L1?
Ideally for the purpose of meetings etc, they should be using the B visa, especially when they have not sponsored an immigrant petition. But in your case, you have an immigrant intent so I guess a H or L is the way to go. Please consult an attorney as I have no idea about what implications your Canadian pay setup will have over the 'pay prevailing wages during H1B presence' issue.
I dont know much about L1 but yours seems perfectly suited for an L1 and I believe L1 can have immigrant intent too. Any reason you cant go on to L1?
more...
H1B-GC
11-30 02:32 PM
GC Delay,
Take an infopass Appointment and speak to an IO . Hope all the Mess created by USCIS in your case will be cleared. Below is the link for infopass... Since it is USCIS error, hope they will approve ur AOS as a courtesy ;)
https://infopass.uscis.gov/infopass.php
Take an infopass Appointment and speak to an IO . Hope all the Mess created by USCIS in your case will be cleared. Below is the link for infopass... Since it is USCIS error, hope they will approve ur AOS as a courtesy ;)
https://infopass.uscis.gov/infopass.php
optimist578
03-18 12:34 PM
Info from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-572
----Quoted from website -----------------
H.R. 572: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Commission Act of 2007
Status: Introduced
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Sponsor: Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY] (no cosponsors)
Last Action: Jan 18, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics:
Edolphus Towns has sponsored 90 bills since Jan 6, 1999, of which 88 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Towns has co-sponsored 2239 bills during the same time period (Exceedingly Many, relative to peers).
================================================== ====
How encouraging is that?
Have people seen the movie Legally Blonde 2? How the lead person lobbies for the Bruisser Bill ? Wish we could do sth like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Still fighting on... $50 p.m. + Lobbying with local Representatives...
----Quoted from website -----------------
H.R. 572: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Commission Act of 2007
Status: Introduced
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Sponsor: Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY] (no cosponsors)
Last Action: Jan 18, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics:
Edolphus Towns has sponsored 90 bills since Jan 6, 1999, of which 88 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Towns has co-sponsored 2239 bills during the same time period (Exceedingly Many, relative to peers).
================================================== ====
How encouraging is that?
Have people seen the movie Legally Blonde 2? How the lead person lobbies for the Bruisser Bill ? Wish we could do sth like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Still fighting on... $50 p.m. + Lobbying with local Representatives...
more...
Rajeev
10-12 09:50 AM
The maximum duration allowed on L1B is 5 years where as on L1A, it is 7 years. On H1B it is 6 years. Duration spent on L1 is counted with the duration spent on H1 and vice versa.
The maximum time allowed on H1B is 6 years, this includes the time you spent on L1. This is the reason why you have been given H1B that is only valid for 1 year.
On a side note, the maximum time allowed on L1 is 5 years - you had to go back to India since you have spent the maximum allowable time on that visa.
Now, there are two ways to extend your stay beyond the initial 5/6 yrs granted on H1 or L1 visas.
1. For both L1 and H1Bs: Go back to your country (India) for 1 yr after your initial term expires. After 1 yr stay in your home country, you will be eligible for "another cycle" of L1/H1. So, for L1 you will get another 5 yrs, and H1B another 6 yrs.
2. Another way to extend your H1B is to start your Green card process (file your labor, and then your 140). Once your labor is pending for > 1 yr, or your 140 is approved, you will be eligible for 1 yr or 3 yr H1B extensions. This does not apply to L1s.
Here is what I would suggest for your case:
Best case scenario: Wait until your 1 yr clock resets, apply for fresh L1A (multi national manager). Once you are in the USA, convince your company to file for your green card in EB1 - multi national manager. The EB1 is almost always current, you can get your GC pretty soon.
This is the best case scenario that I can envision for you.
Alternatively,you can come back immediately on H1, apply for your PERM and 140, and then get unlimited extensions based on your GC being pending.
You can also wait until your 1 yr clock resets and then enter on H1 in Feb 2008, where by you might be able to claim 5 more years on H1B extensions ( a total of fresh 6 yrs on your current H1B). eventually, you will have to file for your PERM and 140 and then get extensions beyond the 6 yrs. I think you will need to file a petition with USCIS indicating the H1B clock reset.
Merely applying for L1A will not invalidate your H1. however, entering on L1A will invalidate your H1b (you can only hold one visa at a time - L1 or H1B). BTW... I guess you can not enter on L1 until you reset your 1 yr clock.
If I were you,I would seriously consider entering on L1A and then filing for EB1 GC. This is the quickest possible route for your GC. Unless, ofcourse, you do not want to be with the company for another year or so because your relationship with the employer is strained.
The maximum time allowed on H1B is 6 years, this includes the time you spent on L1. This is the reason why you have been given H1B that is only valid for 1 year.
On a side note, the maximum time allowed on L1 is 5 years - you had to go back to India since you have spent the maximum allowable time on that visa.
Now, there are two ways to extend your stay beyond the initial 5/6 yrs granted on H1 or L1 visas.
1. For both L1 and H1Bs: Go back to your country (India) for 1 yr after your initial term expires. After 1 yr stay in your home country, you will be eligible for "another cycle" of L1/H1. So, for L1 you will get another 5 yrs, and H1B another 6 yrs.
2. Another way to extend your H1B is to start your Green card process (file your labor, and then your 140). Once your labor is pending for > 1 yr, or your 140 is approved, you will be eligible for 1 yr or 3 yr H1B extensions. This does not apply to L1s.
Here is what I would suggest for your case:
Best case scenario: Wait until your 1 yr clock resets, apply for fresh L1A (multi national manager). Once you are in the USA, convince your company to file for your green card in EB1 - multi national manager. The EB1 is almost always current, you can get your GC pretty soon.
This is the best case scenario that I can envision for you.
Alternatively,you can come back immediately on H1, apply for your PERM and 140, and then get unlimited extensions based on your GC being pending.
You can also wait until your 1 yr clock resets and then enter on H1 in Feb 2008, where by you might be able to claim 5 more years on H1B extensions ( a total of fresh 6 yrs on your current H1B). eventually, you will have to file for your PERM and 140 and then get extensions beyond the 6 yrs. I think you will need to file a petition with USCIS indicating the H1B clock reset.
Merely applying for L1A will not invalidate your H1. however, entering on L1A will invalidate your H1b (you can only hold one visa at a time - L1 or H1B). BTW... I guess you can not enter on L1 until you reset your 1 yr clock.
If I were you,I would seriously consider entering on L1A and then filing for EB1 GC. This is the quickest possible route for your GC. Unless, ofcourse, you do not want to be with the company for another year or so because your relationship with the employer is strained.
gc_in_30_yrs
09-12 08:15 PM
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
Thanks for pointing out the isse I had. I meant to say; only that in between projects; it is okay to take vacation, but I was rude in explaining which caught everybody's attention. My thoughts were As You Explained.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
Thanks for pointing out the isse I had. I meant to say; only that in between projects; it is okay to take vacation, but I was rude in explaining which caught everybody's attention. My thoughts were As You Explained.
more...
dionysus
01-21 05:18 AM
Are you starting this rumor fresh, or are you passing on a third party rumor?
:)
rumour say retrogression may lift on march 2009, is it true????
:)
rumour say retrogression may lift on march 2009, is it true????
jr8rdt
01-07 02:51 PM
casinoroyale - can you clarify, you are contradicting yourself.
your first email says: I have done paid consultation with murthy office on this matter. As per them, one can continue to work on H1B even after returning on AP.
your second email says:
Ok, after using AP there are two ways in order to reinstate H1B status.
1) By applying H1b extension after entering on AP
2) going out of country and entering with valid h1b visa stamp.
-can or can't we use H1 after using AP.
-what do you mean by "to reinstate H1 by applying H1b extension after entering on AP". are you saying that though the H1 expiration is say 2010 but since one is using AP to enter now (2008) one should apply for extension right away?
your first email says: I have done paid consultation with murthy office on this matter. As per them, one can continue to work on H1B even after returning on AP.
your second email says:
Ok, after using AP there are two ways in order to reinstate H1B status.
1) By applying H1b extension after entering on AP
2) going out of country and entering with valid h1b visa stamp.
-can or can't we use H1 after using AP.
-what do you mean by "to reinstate H1 by applying H1b extension after entering on AP". are you saying that though the H1 expiration is say 2010 but since one is using AP to enter now (2008) one should apply for extension right away?
rajarao
09-11 11:06 AM
The trend here clearly shows- how bad is this broken LEGAL immigration system. NSC send only receipts, TSC sends EADs but no receipts. People with 2005 prioritry date get their GCs (some reported EB-2 cases from India that got GC in July, because prioroty dates were current), but the next month goes back to unavailable and then to Apr 04 (Sept visa bulletin) and then may go back to stone ages (some predict 2003- for October bulletin).
Isn't this time for fixing the system- legally?.. IV is doing its best- kudos to IV and hope the eyes of US govt open up. It should not be hit or miss and your fate should not be decided by lottery- there is whole different category for that.
Isn't this time for fixing the system- legally?.. IV is doing its best- kudos to IV and hope the eyes of US govt open up. It should not be hit or miss and your fate should not be decided by lottery- there is whole different category for that.
fromnaija
12-09 04:09 PM
According to my attorney, you can re-apply for AP from outside of the U.S. and have it delivered to a local consulate.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
san3297
06-29 03:36 PM
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the reply i too was looking an answer for this question.As it is partly answered my question i am posting the remaining question of mine.Sorry for posting in thread not created by me.
If i apply for H1 Extension and Travel outside US and While returning back if i enter with my Visa which is valid only till Nov 2009 and do not have H1 Extension Approval document in my hand what should i need to do.Do i need to travel outside the country again after getting my H1 Extension approval and before my H1B Visa Expires. What is the solution for this scenario.
Thanks for the reply i too was looking an answer for this question.As it is partly answered my question i am posting the remaining question of mine.Sorry for posting in thread not created by me.
If i apply for H1 Extension and Travel outside US and While returning back if i enter with my Visa which is valid only till Nov 2009 and do not have H1 Extension Approval document in my hand what should i need to do.Do i need to travel outside the country again after getting my H1 Extension approval and before my H1B Visa Expires. What is the solution for this scenario.
No comments:
Post a Comment