baburob2
02-16 01:17 PM
Hi Logiclife
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
wallpaper spider bite pictures
docwa
04-11 03:08 PM
Sure moonlighting should definitely be ok.
Will being a fellow be ok too? Its open only to internists, but is a training program in oncology. Its only 2 years, and looking at to current rate of processing, I should be done by the time my PD (sept 2006) is current.
Will being a fellow be ok too? Its open only to internists, but is a training program in oncology. Its only 2 years, and looking at to current rate of processing, I should be done by the time my PD (sept 2006) is current.
youngindia
06-07 11:51 PM
3 cheers to Nasscom!!!
Iam moving to India with a GC or no GC. Where there are guys like IT conglomerates who know how to get back! I sure want to be a part of that competitive culture!
That's the way Indian competitiveness should be projected. Senator Durbin has got a fitting reply from the big fish (Shark). Its an iron clad glove saying "Don't mess with free trade. THere are US cos doing business in India too!"
Iam moving to India with a GC or no GC. Where there are guys like IT conglomerates who know how to get back! I sure want to be a part of that competitive culture!
That's the way Indian competitiveness should be projected. Senator Durbin has got a fitting reply from the big fish (Shark). Its an iron clad glove saying "Don't mess with free trade. THere are US cos doing business in India too!"
2011 the spider you really do need
gclocker
01-07 11:12 AM
Hi All,
I am a new user to this forum. I have been reading all the messages in this forum silently from the past couple of weeks. This is very interesting to see lot of efforts are going on to get the relief from the retrogression. I am also one of the victim for this. Here are my details.
Labor PD: 19 Nov 2003.
Labor Approved: 17 Nov 2005
140 filed: 5 Dec 2005.
AD???????
I am a new user to this forum. I have been reading all the messages in this forum silently from the past couple of weeks. This is very interesting to see lot of efforts are going on to get the relief from the retrogression. I am also one of the victim for this. Here are my details.
Labor PD: 19 Nov 2003.
Labor Approved: 17 Nov 2005
140 filed: 5 Dec 2005.
AD???????
more...
leoindiano
03-17 10:02 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
manish1905
02-04 08:57 AM
Congrats!!!
more...
hope2007
04-15 11:46 AM
changing job location...
2010 False Huntsman Spider
dpp
10-23 11:57 AM
You are 100% correct. They look for PD while accepting I-485 and then they see it only at the time of approval. There is no FIFO. It all depends on luck.
I think 485 processing is not dependent on PD being current. It is only the adjudication or final approval for which the PD needs to be current.
All 485 processing takes place based on it's receipt date and after it is complete the application is put on hold for approval untill the PD becomes current for that application.
I think 485 processing is not dependent on PD being current. It is only the adjudication or final approval for which the PD needs to be current.
All 485 processing takes place based on it's receipt date and after it is complete the application is put on hold for approval untill the PD becomes current for that application.
more...
nirenjoshi
07-13 11:51 AM
Was yours paper filed or e-filed?
Mine was e-filed same date - June 19th.
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
Mine was e-filed same date - June 19th.
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
hair Huntsman Spider (Sparassidae)
excogitator
11-23 03:34 AM
All the Best Everyone!!! :)
more...
rbalaji5
03-19 01:03 PM
If it is true, how come the few person with old priority date (2002) is still waiting and some person with later priority date (2003,2004) got their GC..after Name check
hot spotted a Huntsman spider.
willwin
07-15 05:10 PM
I got my PCC in San Francisco Indian Consulate last year assuming that I might get the appointment. but never happened until now. I am not sure that is still valid PCC. I might have to go to India and then apply for a new one from the local police station.
Is it not much easier to get the PCC renewed (basically a new PCC from here)?
Is it not much easier to get the PCC renewed (basically a new PCC from here)?
more...
house spider bite. Spider Bite
n2b
07-13 02:04 PM
SUIT OR NO SUIT, BUT
The question is, how will this rally look and feel different from illegal immigrant rally?
The question is, how will this rally look and feel different from illegal immigrant rally?
tattoo ones foot Cane+spider+ite
raghureddy
03-18 07:45 PM
it is usually 6 to 9 months now, i guess u can wait for some more time and then approach senators office...Good Luck
more...
pictures The African Huntsman
gapala
04-22 10:59 PM
Thanks every one for your inputs. I been swinging on tis for a while now and after seeing your inputs, I made up my mind not to pursue this.
I am surprised this company is still doing what its doing considering USCIS scrutiny these days. Good to know that we are not supposed to pay for H-1 as prospective employees. And I def dont want to lose my 700 or 800USD for lawer in case the CAP reaches its limit in the next few days.
Thanks again.
I am glad, member's comments helped you. All said and done. What is the right thing to do now? Expose "this company" as you call them..
Why don't you post the name of company as you already posted the state and city they operate from, and name of the person with whom you have been going back and forth as you said in your post? That will help everybody including the authorities to take them to task if they are doing anything illegal..
I am surprised this company is still doing what its doing considering USCIS scrutiny these days. Good to know that we are not supposed to pay for H-1 as prospective employees. And I def dont want to lose my 700 or 800USD for lawer in case the CAP reaches its limit in the next few days.
Thanks again.
I am glad, member's comments helped you. All said and done. What is the right thing to do now? Expose "this company" as you call them..
Why don't you post the name of company as you already posted the state and city they operate from, and name of the person with whom you have been going back and forth as you said in your post? That will help everybody including the authorities to take them to task if they are doing anything illegal..
dresses HUNTSMAN SPIDER This was on my
MahaBharatGC
08-15 10:22 AM
I dont think that the priority dates will become current by next year october for 2003. I really pray for that to happen as we are all going to go through...
We all know that working as a consultant without GC is very risky when market goes down.
So, play your cards safe....
We all know that working as a consultant without GC is very risky when market goes down.
So, play your cards safe....
more...
makeup They will ite so leave them
srikanthmavurapu
08-16 04:03 PM
It all depends if you have a written agreement that prohibits you from working with the current employer. If there is no contract, you are safe. It seems that there is no such contract that either you signed with your ex-employer or middle-men.
If your employer doesn't pay you the salary that he agreed to (in writing), then you can be sure that DOL will ask your employer to pay a fine and pay you the salary. I would suggest that if he does or does not sue you, you better complain to DOL that you weren't getting paid. This will no way this will affect you.
In the Employee Agreement which i signed there is clause saying i cannot work for the same client directly or indirectly for one year . I don't think i signed any contract with ex-employer or middle men. I don't even have the copy of contract document(purchase order) when i got this job offer at this client.
I will complain to DOL just thinking to talk to a Lawyer first but i will complain to DOL this week at any cost.
Thanks,
Srikanth
If your employer doesn't pay you the salary that he agreed to (in writing), then you can be sure that DOL will ask your employer to pay a fine and pay you the salary. I would suggest that if he does or does not sue you, you better complain to DOL that you weren't getting paid. This will no way this will affect you.
In the Employee Agreement which i signed there is clause saying i cannot work for the same client directly or indirectly for one year . I don't think i signed any contract with ex-employer or middle men. I don't even have the copy of contract document(purchase order) when i got this job offer at this client.
I will complain to DOL just thinking to talk to a Lawyer first but i will complain to DOL this week at any cost.
Thanks,
Srikanth
girlfriend on the spider#39;s face.
mmanurker
04-13 01:54 PM
In my company 3 of my collegues are doing exactly this. All are representing US company in the offshore development centre. there payrolls are run here in US, they are in India and all there expenses are paid by US company. They pay taxes here in US show some friends address and there 485 is also in progress
I am on H1b and also travel a lot at times upto 4 months. (same LCA issue should be true for me also) but never had an issue....
But I hear you, so better check with an lawyer and have a complete picture, but as I say this is completely doable.
Well all I can say is that you all are lucky and hope that the luck does not run out down the road because in US not knowing law is not an excuse and as long as DOL or USCIS does not find this out you are fine. Giving friends address and filing taxes using friends address and filing LCA to show that you will be working from a location in US and running payroll from that state but in reality working outside USA, to me if DOL/USCIS finds out then they might treat this as LCA voilations, fraud and misrepresentation and both you and your employer could land into trouble.
I remember few years back some of the H1B employees as well as employer(owner of the company and few others) were handcuffed and arrested for LCA voilations...
here is the old link from murthy.com:
MurthyDotCom : INS Raid re: LCA Violations Against H1B Employer (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDraid.html)
here is another one:
MurthyDotCom : Arrests of H1B Employers Increase (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_h1arst.html)
LCA voilations also result in H1B's revoked by USCIS. Its just that after Neufield Memo in Jan 2010 that the focus shifted towards employer-employee relationship but prior to Jan 2010, most of the talk on immigration forums were about the LCA and LCA voilations.
About you travelling upto 4 months, I am not sure how your LCA is drafted and filed. but here is some info that If an employee works for more than 30 consecutive days or 60 aggregate days within a 12 month period at a location not listed on the LCA, the employer must file a new LCA documenting that change. OR employer can list multiple locations on the LCA filed the very first time itself.
and about your taxes, you will be considered as resident alien if you lived and worked more than 180 days in the same state/place.
Again I could be wrong here but this is my understanding considering the kind of cases that I hear abt LCA voilations and subsequent petition denials..
Bottom line seek legal advice from attorneys.
I am on H1b and also travel a lot at times upto 4 months. (same LCA issue should be true for me also) but never had an issue....
But I hear you, so better check with an lawyer and have a complete picture, but as I say this is completely doable.
Well all I can say is that you all are lucky and hope that the luck does not run out down the road because in US not knowing law is not an excuse and as long as DOL or USCIS does not find this out you are fine. Giving friends address and filing taxes using friends address and filing LCA to show that you will be working from a location in US and running payroll from that state but in reality working outside USA, to me if DOL/USCIS finds out then they might treat this as LCA voilations, fraud and misrepresentation and both you and your employer could land into trouble.
I remember few years back some of the H1B employees as well as employer(owner of the company and few others) were handcuffed and arrested for LCA voilations...
here is the old link from murthy.com:
MurthyDotCom : INS Raid re: LCA Violations Against H1B Employer (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDraid.html)
here is another one:
MurthyDotCom : Arrests of H1B Employers Increase (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_h1arst.html)
LCA voilations also result in H1B's revoked by USCIS. Its just that after Neufield Memo in Jan 2010 that the focus shifted towards employer-employee relationship but prior to Jan 2010, most of the talk on immigration forums were about the LCA and LCA voilations.
About you travelling upto 4 months, I am not sure how your LCA is drafted and filed. but here is some info that If an employee works for more than 30 consecutive days or 60 aggregate days within a 12 month period at a location not listed on the LCA, the employer must file a new LCA documenting that change. OR employer can list multiple locations on the LCA filed the very first time itself.
and about your taxes, you will be considered as resident alien if you lived and worked more than 180 days in the same state/place.
Again I could be wrong here but this is my understanding considering the kind of cases that I hear abt LCA voilations and subsequent petition denials..
Bottom line seek legal advice from attorneys.
hairstyles A crab spider was
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
delax
11-08 01:43 PM
sury,
What that means is "All applications received before August 25, 2006 AND whose PD is current , are being processed"
If your PD is 2003 but you filed your I-485 after Aug'2006 your app will not be adjudicated.
If you filed before Aug'2006 but your PD is after Apr'2004, your app will not be adjudicated.
If your PD is before Apr'2004 and you filed your app before August 25, 2006, your app will be adjudicated..
This is to make sure people don't start expecting approvals and calling them left and right one day after filing if their PD is current. they need some time for every application, so they put in this 'processing date' which works in conjunction with 'priority date' to check if a case is approvable at any given time. They normally won't entertain calls enquiring about a case if the filing date does not fall within this processing date.
I beg to differ - while your general premise is accurate, I know of at least half a dozen people who filed 485 in June 2007 and got appproved over the last two weeks from TX Service Center - I dont think Aug 2006 is a hard date - like many other things with USCIS - they have an irrational passion for NOT applying the FIFO principle and we are expected to digest this irrational passion of theirs with dispassionate rationality.
What that means is "All applications received before August 25, 2006 AND whose PD is current , are being processed"
If your PD is 2003 but you filed your I-485 after Aug'2006 your app will not be adjudicated.
If you filed before Aug'2006 but your PD is after Apr'2004, your app will not be adjudicated.
If your PD is before Apr'2004 and you filed your app before August 25, 2006, your app will be adjudicated..
This is to make sure people don't start expecting approvals and calling them left and right one day after filing if their PD is current. they need some time for every application, so they put in this 'processing date' which works in conjunction with 'priority date' to check if a case is approvable at any given time. They normally won't entertain calls enquiring about a case if the filing date does not fall within this processing date.
I beg to differ - while your general premise is accurate, I know of at least half a dozen people who filed 485 in June 2007 and got appproved over the last two weeks from TX Service Center - I dont think Aug 2006 is a hard date - like many other things with USCIS - they have an irrational passion for NOT applying the FIFO principle and we are expected to digest this irrational passion of theirs with dispassionate rationality.
eb3retro
04-17 04:44 PM
I didnt sign this petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment