chmur
07-27 06:09 PM
otherwise society would have have no use for lawyers....who make a living making interpretation of the existing laws.
Anyway, the current discussion is not even about the law but about the different interpretations of the same law . The Visa Bulletin extract also provided yet another interpretation by the same authority.
The Law/Directions from the congress regarding spill over distribution has not changed in over 5 years but it's interpretation and implementation by DOS has changed drastically in the same period.
They have gone "Vertical" to "Horizontal" and probably will somersault next .
2006 -2007 saw EB3 getting lion share of the spill over EB2. It is being reversed now, all without change in any laws/directions from congress.
This year's interpretation cannot be assumed as absolute just because it is favorable to a particular segment of applicants and it is incorrect to opine that any change in such interpretation requires change in law.
All this indicates that congress has given enough leeway to DOS to interpret it's directions , as DOS sees fit to run it's business.
and I think herein lies an oppurtunity for EB3 applicants to state their case and explain if DOS continues with it's current interpretation.
EB3 lobby has to impress upon the DOS that it is in DOS's intrest to not to starve any particular queue lest it will damage it's own throughput.
If convinced , DOS might look at alternative algorithm to mitigate starving within the current directions, atleast we can hope for that.
Now what that mitigation strategy will be within the current laws is known only to DOS. Which algorithm requires law changes... which do not none of us know yet ...everything alternative suggested is speculation based on contradicting interpretations provided by DOS over the years.
Anyway, the current discussion is not even about the law but about the different interpretations of the same law . The Visa Bulletin extract also provided yet another interpretation by the same authority.
The Law/Directions from the congress regarding spill over distribution has not changed in over 5 years but it's interpretation and implementation by DOS has changed drastically in the same period.
They have gone "Vertical" to "Horizontal" and probably will somersault next .
2006 -2007 saw EB3 getting lion share of the spill over EB2. It is being reversed now, all without change in any laws/directions from congress.
This year's interpretation cannot be assumed as absolute just because it is favorable to a particular segment of applicants and it is incorrect to opine that any change in such interpretation requires change in law.
All this indicates that congress has given enough leeway to DOS to interpret it's directions , as DOS sees fit to run it's business.
and I think herein lies an oppurtunity for EB3 applicants to state their case and explain if DOS continues with it's current interpretation.
EB3 lobby has to impress upon the DOS that it is in DOS's intrest to not to starve any particular queue lest it will damage it's own throughput.
If convinced , DOS might look at alternative algorithm to mitigate starving within the current directions, atleast we can hope for that.
Now what that mitigation strategy will be within the current laws is known only to DOS. Which algorithm requires law changes... which do not none of us know yet ...everything alternative suggested is speculation based on contradicting interpretations provided by DOS over the years.
wallpaper Emma Watson short haircut
arnet
05-04 02:55 PM
what about country limit or quota (hard country limit too)?
siddhu98
08-14 11:57 AM
EB2-I
EAD application mailed : 7/8/2008
EAD Receipt Date: 7/11/2008
Card approved: 08/12/2008
EAD application mailed : 7/8/2008
EAD Receipt Date: 7/11/2008
Card approved: 08/12/2008
2011 dresses emma watson short
desi3933
07-10 12:24 AM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
desi3933
06-26 02:01 PM
EEO does not protect immigration status based discrimination. However Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 does protect against discrimination based on immigration status.
https://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm
SEC. 102. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Could you please show us, where in the link you provided, H-1B applicant needs to treated equally for job hiring as compared to GC and EAD workers.
EOE deals with equality (i.e. equal opportunities) for hiring, job promotion, and firing.
IRC Act 1985 deals with unlawful employment of aliens, unfair immigration-related employment practices, and fraud & misuse of certain immigration-related documents.
Two different things.
However, once H-1B applicant is hired, he/she is protected just like any other worker, for job promotions, training, and other work conditions. But employer is under no obligation to extend H-1B beyond any initial H-1B petition date. And, yes, H-1B can also be fired at will*, just like any other worker.
_________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
https://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm
SEC. 102. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Could you please show us, where in the link you provided, H-1B applicant needs to treated equally for job hiring as compared to GC and EAD workers.
EOE deals with equality (i.e. equal opportunities) for hiring, job promotion, and firing.
IRC Act 1985 deals with unlawful employment of aliens, unfair immigration-related employment practices, and fraud & misuse of certain immigration-related documents.
Two different things.
However, once H-1B applicant is hired, he/she is protected just like any other worker, for job promotions, training, and other work conditions. But employer is under no obligation to extend H-1B beyond any initial H-1B petition date. And, yes, H-1B can also be fired at will*, just like any other worker.
_________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
gk_2000
07-20 04:27 PM
Correct me If I am wrong
out of 45K members let's assume 22.5 K are EB2 and 22.5 K are EB3.
Even If 11.25K (EB2)+11.25K (EB3) = 22.5 K (Total) contributes $25 Each Problems gets solved ... but the catch is ....
Even 11.25 K EB2 members are not contributing because they don't have to as their problem is solved
Even 11.25 K EB3 members are not contributing because they are not sure even with this contribution their problems gets solved.
Many people are saying that EB3 members are not contributing that's why you are lagging etc...
EB3 Members who contributed are feeling the pain because even after contribution they are not getting the results and EB2 members who didn't contributed are getting the results...
Could you elaborate on how the money will solve the problem? If we could make a laundry list of action items and cost for each, we could do an extensive email campaign among all our members and convince them to contribute
More people will contribute if and when they get a clear picture of how the money will work for them
And no, I am not making any statement here throwing suspicions and distrust or ill will. This is a suggestion for improving the contributions, which is coming across as a weak area
out of 45K members let's assume 22.5 K are EB2 and 22.5 K are EB3.
Even If 11.25K (EB2)+11.25K (EB3) = 22.5 K (Total) contributes $25 Each Problems gets solved ... but the catch is ....
Even 11.25 K EB2 members are not contributing because they don't have to as their problem is solved
Even 11.25 K EB3 members are not contributing because they are not sure even with this contribution their problems gets solved.
Many people are saying that EB3 members are not contributing that's why you are lagging etc...
EB3 Members who contributed are feeling the pain because even after contribution they are not getting the results and EB2 members who didn't contributed are getting the results...
Could you elaborate on how the money will solve the problem? If we could make a laundry list of action items and cost for each, we could do an extensive email campaign among all our members and convince them to contribute
More people will contribute if and when they get a clear picture of how the money will work for them
And no, I am not making any statement here throwing suspicions and distrust or ill will. This is a suggestion for improving the contributions, which is coming across as a weak area
more...
trueguy
07-28 12:47 PM
Sorry to read blaming debates between eb3 and eb2. Insted of blaming, it is better to take some action. Based on current practice by DOS, EB3-I will be like this for ever, unless more number opens up by any legislative changes. As per law, each EB catagories are allowed to have 40K visas. As demand for EB2 is more, (paricularly by In,Ch) one can not expect any flow from EB2 to EB3 . This is law one can not change it.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
You already see that happening. EB2-ROW with PD as early as Jan 2008 are getting approved. So they get their GC in less than 8 months (including all the stages).
EB3-ROW will never be current and hence no spillover to EB3-I. EB3-I is screwed up royally. EB3-I will get 3000 visas per year and that will not help move PD by one month even.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
You already see that happening. EB2-ROW with PD as early as Jan 2008 are getting approved. So they get their GC in less than 8 months (including all the stages).
EB3-ROW will never be current and hence no spillover to EB3-I. EB3-I is screwed up royally. EB3-I will get 3000 visas per year and that will not help move PD by one month even.
2010 emma watson short haircut
feedfront
08-31 03:47 PM
I really like this idea.... Actually if north Indians didn't rule Central government in India for such a long time (before PV Narasimha Rao), south Indians would be better off in India itself !!! Then north Indians would be citizens of USA in no time, and South Indians (in India) would have been happy about it!!!
Either way, get well soon!
In this anxious moment of 'when will my number come', you guys are awesome w/ humor.
Either way, get well soon!
In this anxious moment of 'when will my number come', you guys are awesome w/ humor.
more...
FrankZulu
08-25 12:39 PM
Folks
Can anyone advise on what docs to take along for an Infopass appointment?
The result of my SR was a recommendation by them to set up an Infopass. Going there this Friday.
Thanks for any advise and guidance.
Photo ID (Lic. or PP)
Can anyone advise on what docs to take along for an Infopass appointment?
The result of my SR was a recommendation by them to set up an Infopass. Going there this Friday.
Thanks for any advise and guidance.
Photo ID (Lic. or PP)
hair Emma Watson in a black one
clockwork
07-02 09:53 AM
Only 50 people mailed their package for July 2nd delivery. You got to be kidding. Please post details of your friends as well if they shipped on July 2nd. I remember seeing a post on another thread with speculation of 100K packages. Thanks -:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
more...
snathan
02-09 09:24 PM
Any one else....today?
hot wallpaper emma watson short
GCStatus
09-13 10:25 PM
Could you provide details on your POA (Plan Of Action) .. how are you going to go about facing them, confronting them, demanding justice? I'd be happy to pitch in.
Like i said, we ask them to do either one of 2 options. If they dont, we file a lawsuit ( obviously its understood the ground work is done )
Like i said, we ask them to do either one of 2 options. If they dont, we file a lawsuit ( obviously its understood the ground work is done )
more...
house emma watson short hair 2011.
ramboom1
05-03 10:11 AM
We have to go to a consulate in our home country to get VISA stamping.
1000's of us are affected. SKIL bill Section 402 is addressing this.
1000's of us are affected. SKIL bill Section 402 is addressing this.
tattoo hair Potter star Emma Watson emma watson vogue photo shoot 2011.
fightnow
07-06 07:52 PM
I mentioned to the police that most participants are from China and India. This is true. Both are the main victims of backlog and what so ever.
more...
pictures emma watson hair short.
franklin
07-08 03:38 PM
---
I just heard from our Chinese member. They are getting a huge response for this 14th July demonstration. We need more awareness about this event among our members. Please spread the word.
The place and time is:
Location: City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose
When: From Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:00 am to 2:30 pm
Bay Area members - please join the Northern California Bay Area Chapter. Details in sig
I just heard from our Chinese member. They are getting a huge response for this 14th July demonstration. We need more awareness about this event among our members. Please spread the word.
The place and time is:
Location: City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose
When: From Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:00 am to 2:30 pm
Bay Area members - please join the Northern California Bay Area Chapter. Details in sig
dresses images emma watson short
rambo45
10-01 04:24 PM
Hi,
Can you pls explain or give an approximate number of months in advance one shud comfortably apply for the renewal of the EAD?
You can file for an EAD up to 4 months in advance... according to my lawyer
Can you pls explain or give an approximate number of months in advance one shud comfortably apply for the renewal of the EAD?
You can file for an EAD up to 4 months in advance... according to my lawyer
more...
makeup emma watson short hair
csreddy329
11-17 03:53 PM
Done
girlfriend dresses emma watson short hair ugly. emma watson short hair ugly. emma
coolpal
08-01 02:32 PM
my 485 app was delivered to NSC on 2nd @ 8.26am..
my 140 was approved from TSC.... and no reciept or encashed checks yet!
But are we sure, all our applications will be transferred to TSC? I've heard that the new rule that the apps should be sent to TSC or NSC based on state u live in is gonna take effect only from this week....
thanks,
pal :)
my 140 was approved from TSC.... and no reciept or encashed checks yet!
But are we sure, all our applications will be transferred to TSC? I've heard that the new rule that the apps should be sent to TSC or NSC based on state u live in is gonna take effect only from this week....
thanks,
pal :)
hairstyles pictures Emma Watson Short
anantc
08-20 02:45 PM
EAD renewal applied for spouse: July 21 2008
Receipt dt/Check EnCashed: July 23 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PD:Oct 2003
I-140 (EB2) Filed in Oct'06 received query in Dec 2007. Employer forced to change to EB3 140..so
I-140(EB3) Pending and transfered to Nebraska Center
I-485 Pending (But applied before EB2 140 got query) ..so
No Idea!! :((
More than 9yrs waiting now! with some Hope of getting EB3 485 moving to Oct 2003 and up in Sept.
Receipt dt/Check EnCashed: July 23 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PD:Oct 2003
I-140 (EB2) Filed in Oct'06 received query in Dec 2007. Employer forced to change to EB3 140..so
I-140(EB3) Pending and transfered to Nebraska Center
I-485 Pending (But applied before EB2 140 got query) ..so
No Idea!! :((
More than 9yrs waiting now! with some Hope of getting EB3 485 moving to Oct 2003 and up in Sept.
gc_eb2_waiter
11-30 03:51 PM
Please check your message.
chi_shark
07-10 12:01 PM
same way you prove that in the case of I-140... by writing up letters exlaining job duties... and showing offer letter, pay stubs, company tax returns and/or quarterly tax receipts, client contracts... etc etc etc... again: what is your true point? why do you suspect that this is difficult?
Its not ability to pay issue? The main point is to show that job is real, and bonafine.
May I ask, how do you plan to demonstate that job offered in self employment is same/similar to I-140 job and it is bonafide job offer?
.
Its not ability to pay issue? The main point is to show that job is real, and bonafine.
May I ask, how do you plan to demonstate that job offered in self employment is same/similar to I-140 job and it is bonafide job offer?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment