meridiani.planum
04-03 02:09 PM
Just curious - Have you heard of a case being rejected just because the salary was higher than the original LC ?? (Assuming job title/description are same or similar). I think it will be almost impossible for them to reject just because is higher!! Govt. cannot dictate the upper limit of salaries (in private sector).
nope, so far I have not come across a single case where this has been an issue (which was one reason I went ahead with the move). However there have been inklings about USCIS possibly taking a tougher position on this in the future.
For instance see:
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_porret.html
Salary Considerations for the New Job
�MurthyDotCom
Attorneys in our firm are frequently asked about the impact of a difference in salary when changing jobs under AC21. We are also asked what "same or similar" really means in order for one to be eligible under AC21 portability. USCIS policy memoranda, particularly the May 12, 2005 Memo referenced above, have been quite favorable on these matters. However, in that same memo, the USCIS stated that the forthcoming AC21 regulations "may take a more restrictive position than this memorandum." Therefore, while issues such as salary differences do not appear to be problematic at present, foreshadowing indicates that this could change when the regulations are released at some future date.
From my research I have found so far that it will be hard for them to put a dollar or percentage figure on the amount the salary can vary. The best they can do is perhaps put it in some range based on prevailing wages. Other than that, salary itself is a very market driven thing. I hope they dont, and I dont think it buys them much. The DOT codes and job-duties description should be what they should look at (or actually they should broaden the allowed job changes considering how long the wait has become now-a-days).
Lets see what happens. Main trouble is like what Murthy mentions in that article a little later: if changes happen, they are retroactive...
nope, so far I have not come across a single case where this has been an issue (which was one reason I went ahead with the move). However there have been inklings about USCIS possibly taking a tougher position on this in the future.
For instance see:
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_porret.html
Salary Considerations for the New Job
�MurthyDotCom
Attorneys in our firm are frequently asked about the impact of a difference in salary when changing jobs under AC21. We are also asked what "same or similar" really means in order for one to be eligible under AC21 portability. USCIS policy memoranda, particularly the May 12, 2005 Memo referenced above, have been quite favorable on these matters. However, in that same memo, the USCIS stated that the forthcoming AC21 regulations "may take a more restrictive position than this memorandum." Therefore, while issues such as salary differences do not appear to be problematic at present, foreshadowing indicates that this could change when the regulations are released at some future date.
From my research I have found so far that it will be hard for them to put a dollar or percentage figure on the amount the salary can vary. The best they can do is perhaps put it in some range based on prevailing wages. Other than that, salary itself is a very market driven thing. I hope they dont, and I dont think it buys them much. The DOT codes and job-duties description should be what they should look at (or actually they should broaden the allowed job changes considering how long the wait has become now-a-days).
Lets see what happens. Main trouble is like what Murthy mentions in that article a little later: if changes happen, they are retroactive...
wallpaper dogs and puppies together.
venkygct
05-28 01:09 PM
Its NSC
Is your application pending at TSC or NSC?
Is your application pending at TSC or NSC?
Soul
01-03 08:34 AM
Yay! :beam: Thanks everybody for your votes! :P
Sorry Lost, I liked yours =)
Anyway, whos gonna start the next pixel battle? With more people this time so maybe a longer deadline. Can I start it? I got a good challenging theme ;)
- Soul :goatee:
Sorry Lost, I liked yours =)
Anyway, whos gonna start the next pixel battle? With more people this time so maybe a longer deadline. Can I start it? I got a good challenging theme ;)
- Soul :goatee:
2011 puppies and dogs together.
lonedesi
07-08 07:34 PM
After listening to both the shows, this week as well as last week, I am wondering if it was worth the effort for IV to participate in Debo Kotun's show. Here is my personal comments about the participants and the shows.
Debo Kutan: He did a pathetic job in moderating the shows. He not only spent about 25 minutes talking about his future shows(prior to beginning of today's show), but also repeating the same information from last week and pretty much asking the same questions. He was more interested in talking about his immigration decades ago and how he got his GC in one day, blah blah blah...Also, he mentioned that he was going to get Sen Kennedy & Sen Brownback to participate in today's show..but that was probably some publicity talk to draw more listener's to his show.He repeatedly questioned us to go back to our countries and solve our own problems and as well as theirs rather than trying to understand the root cause of the current situation. He turned out to be very ignorant of the immigration woes and did not seem like he had done any research prior to conducting his shows.
Swadha: She did a good job of explaining her situation and the difficulties she was facing due to the retrogression despite her excellent credentials and qualifications. Thanks to Swadha for her efforts in explaining her current situation due to retrogression.
Carl Shusterman: As popular,qualified and expert he is in the field of immigration, he just turned out to be very ignorant of the ground reality. I was as surprised as Swadha, when he mentioned that people with advanced degrees can get their GC's in a year. Despite having 2 advanced degree's I am still waiting for more than 3 years to be able to apply for I-485. The people most affected by this retrogression are citizens of India and China, not someone from Monaco or Namibia. He was more interested in promoting his Immigration firm and his website. Wish he had been more vocal in explaining the broken immigration system, rather than gaining some publicity for his firm.
Stuart Anderson: He did an excellent job explaining his research studies and how the current immigration laws are affecting the economy and its long term impact, if the immigration system is not rectified soon. Thanks to Stuart for his expert comments and explaining our situation in a wonderful manner.
Rajeev Khanna: He did a good job in the last weeks show, explaining our situation and the broken immigration system. Unfortunately, due to Mr. Kutan's terrible job of moderating, he did not provide much opportunity for Rajeev to speak this week. Thanks to Rajeev for fighting for our cause.
Aman Kapoor: He did a commendable job last week, explaining about IV and its efforts. But due to lack of Mr. Kutans moderating skills, he did not get much time to talk today. Thanks to Aman for organizing and providing an opportunity for IV to discuss about the legal angle of immigration reforms and the difficulties faced by people like us.
Jay Pradhan: Due to technical difficulties, Mr. Kutan could not include him in last week's program, but he did provide him an opportunity this week and explain his case. Jay did an excellent work explaining his situation, current backlogs and also answering some of Mr. Kutan's questions in a very logical manner, like the way only he can do. I wish Mr. Kutan had given more opportunity for Jay to talk and explain the broken immigration system. Excellent job Jay. Hope you get more opportunities like these to discuss about our situation and shed more light to the general public.
Overall, it was some decent publicity for the problems faced by legal immigrant community, though I wonder if it was worth the efforts due to the pathetic job of Mr. Debo Kutan. Hope we can get to participate on more knowledgable/popular talk shows and showcase our problems.
Debo Kutan: He did a pathetic job in moderating the shows. He not only spent about 25 minutes talking about his future shows(prior to beginning of today's show), but also repeating the same information from last week and pretty much asking the same questions. He was more interested in talking about his immigration decades ago and how he got his GC in one day, blah blah blah...Also, he mentioned that he was going to get Sen Kennedy & Sen Brownback to participate in today's show..but that was probably some publicity talk to draw more listener's to his show.He repeatedly questioned us to go back to our countries and solve our own problems and as well as theirs rather than trying to understand the root cause of the current situation. He turned out to be very ignorant of the immigration woes and did not seem like he had done any research prior to conducting his shows.
Swadha: She did a good job of explaining her situation and the difficulties she was facing due to the retrogression despite her excellent credentials and qualifications. Thanks to Swadha for her efforts in explaining her current situation due to retrogression.
Carl Shusterman: As popular,qualified and expert he is in the field of immigration, he just turned out to be very ignorant of the ground reality. I was as surprised as Swadha, when he mentioned that people with advanced degrees can get their GC's in a year. Despite having 2 advanced degree's I am still waiting for more than 3 years to be able to apply for I-485. The people most affected by this retrogression are citizens of India and China, not someone from Monaco or Namibia. He was more interested in promoting his Immigration firm and his website. Wish he had been more vocal in explaining the broken immigration system, rather than gaining some publicity for his firm.
Stuart Anderson: He did an excellent job explaining his research studies and how the current immigration laws are affecting the economy and its long term impact, if the immigration system is not rectified soon. Thanks to Stuart for his expert comments and explaining our situation in a wonderful manner.
Rajeev Khanna: He did a good job in the last weeks show, explaining our situation and the broken immigration system. Unfortunately, due to Mr. Kutan's terrible job of moderating, he did not provide much opportunity for Rajeev to speak this week. Thanks to Rajeev for fighting for our cause.
Aman Kapoor: He did a commendable job last week, explaining about IV and its efforts. But due to lack of Mr. Kutans moderating skills, he did not get much time to talk today. Thanks to Aman for organizing and providing an opportunity for IV to discuss about the legal angle of immigration reforms and the difficulties faced by people like us.
Jay Pradhan: Due to technical difficulties, Mr. Kutan could not include him in last week's program, but he did provide him an opportunity this week and explain his case. Jay did an excellent work explaining his situation, current backlogs and also answering some of Mr. Kutan's questions in a very logical manner, like the way only he can do. I wish Mr. Kutan had given more opportunity for Jay to talk and explain the broken immigration system. Excellent job Jay. Hope you get more opportunities like these to discuss about our situation and shed more light to the general public.
Overall, it was some decent publicity for the problems faced by legal immigrant community, though I wonder if it was worth the efforts due to the pathetic job of Mr. Debo Kutan. Hope we can get to participate on more knowledgable/popular talk shows and showcase our problems.
more...
anilsal
10-12 12:02 PM
there was one person who went to the airport to get the I-94 corrected. Wrong date was entered or such.
abhishek101
06-25 12:55 PM
Sub: Legal Immigration and CIR
Body:
I am here to talk about LEGAL immigration. In all the noise about illegal immigration and their path to legalization a very important subject is lost and that is LEGAL immigration, and delays and problems they are facing.
I came to US in 2000 with a perfect business plan and dream to start a company and spread prosperity, but the path I had to take was H1B visa. After coming here my last 9 years have been spent on getting Green Card ( I have recently filed for my 10th year H1B Extension), and my GC application with a priority date of 2003 March is still waiting in Backlog.
While there is some opposition for illegal immigration more than 90% of people I meet support the improvement in process for LEGAL immigrants. I hope in this CIR while looking at illegal immigration you pay special attention to LEGAL immigration.
Together we can build a happy and prosperous America for future generations.
Sincerely
Body:
I am here to talk about LEGAL immigration. In all the noise about illegal immigration and their path to legalization a very important subject is lost and that is LEGAL immigration, and delays and problems they are facing.
I came to US in 2000 with a perfect business plan and dream to start a company and spread prosperity, but the path I had to take was H1B visa. After coming here my last 9 years have been spent on getting Green Card ( I have recently filed for my 10th year H1B Extension), and my GC application with a priority date of 2003 March is still waiting in Backlog.
While there is some opposition for illegal immigration more than 90% of people I meet support the improvement in process for LEGAL immigrants. I hope in this CIR while looking at illegal immigration you pay special attention to LEGAL immigration.
Together we can build a happy and prosperous America for future generations.
Sincerely
more...
raysaikat
08-18 03:56 PM
Piyush,
Your dependents are "in status" as their I485 pending. donot worry about it. You will receive your card within 3-4 days.
Currently they are of course in status. The problem here is with the RFE for which the poster does not have the required primary evidence. If the RFE is not answered (or even not answered to the satisfaction of the immigration officer), then the I-485's for the dependents would be denied, and then they would be out of status since the primary applicant is no longer in H1-B.
Your dependents are "in status" as their I485 pending. donot worry about it. You will receive your card within 3-4 days.
Currently they are of course in status. The problem here is with the RFE for which the poster does not have the required primary evidence. If the RFE is not answered (or even not answered to the satisfaction of the immigration officer), then the I-485's for the dependents would be denied, and then they would be out of status since the primary applicant is no longer in H1-B.
2010 English Bulldog puppies
lostinbeta
12-30 12:03 PM
Soul.... you gotta win this one, I love your entry.
Oh yeah: I want to go on record as a cheap attempt here and say that this is only my 2nd pixel art attempt. But that doesn't matter because Souls entry makes me want to pass out and die, it is so great!
Oh yeah: I want to go on record as a cheap attempt here and say that this is only my 2nd pixel art attempt. But that doesn't matter because Souls entry makes me want to pass out and die, it is so great!
more...
retropain
08-31 09:04 AM
if only we knew about this program in advance, we could've called. :mad:
hair puppies and dogs together
akhichopra
03-01 07:47 PM
Thanks for your kind reply. Yes this income of 40K is after my employer deducts taxes via withholding everymonth from my salary.
I am confused because I read that you have to declare any foreign accounts held. In my case I dont have any NRI account, I transferred the money to my parents account in India.
I am not sure if I fall in the category where I have to declare all this. Thanks again for your help.
I am confused because I read that you have to declare any foreign accounts held. In my case I dont have any NRI account, I transferred the money to my parents account in India.
I am not sure if I fall in the category where I have to declare all this. Thanks again for your help.
more...
Winner
05-01 04:36 PM
Yes. The malicious code did not download any virus or inject any virus in anyone's system. All it did was to redirect the user via a popup to a malicious website. Antivirus scanners pick this up as a virus alert, but it is not. It is more of an annoyance than a virus attack.
I honestly cannot vouch for the millions of hackers and script kiddies out there that this won't happen but use a good Anti-virus scanner especially if you have kids at home.
Winner,
Yes I am the lazy blog owner who hasn't updated the site in a while.
:)
Don't know about the lazy part, but you do have good writing skills. Do you have a blog on IV site? If no, you may want to consider starting one.
I'll be a regular reader of your blog!
I honestly cannot vouch for the millions of hackers and script kiddies out there that this won't happen but use a good Anti-virus scanner especially if you have kids at home.
Winner,
Yes I am the lazy blog owner who hasn't updated the site in a while.
:)
Don't know about the lazy part, but you do have good writing skills. Do you have a blog on IV site? If no, you may want to consider starting one.
I'll be a regular reader of your blog!
hot Dogs And Puppies Together.
HV000
02-28 09:03 PM
Dear members,
I am on H1B with I-485 Pending and i have layoff coming. I have Approved EAD but i haven't used it. How much time I have to find another job without loosing H1B Status?
I appreciate your help
I am on H1B with I-485 Pending and i have layoff coming. I have Approved EAD but i haven't used it. How much time I have to find another job without loosing H1B Status?
I appreciate your help
more...
house Puppies And Dogs Together.
ebizash
07-07 12:00 PM
Hi,
My attorney received an EVL RFE for my I-485 case. My PD is 2007 EB3 so I don't have any hope of getting GC but I guess they are just pre-adjucating my case.
Here is my situation - I filed my !-485 in Aug 2007 and changed job (without filing any AC-21 paperwork with USCIS) in April 2008. My attorney had looked at new job description and given green signal for change. My entire immigration history of 10 years in US is totally clean with no gaps and with all work autorizations.
Now, my concern is that the letter that my attorney has prepared for my current employer to sign has lot of legal lingo (AC-21 language, lot of CFRs, info related to my LCA and I-140) and has some language to the effect of supporting my LCA and I-140 till my GC is approved. It also states that my current employer was able to afford to pay my salary since the LCA date. My employer is fortune 5 company so money wise there is no problem but my concern is that they may not want to sign such a lengthy (wordy) legal doc without consulting their Immi attorney. I don't have much time to respond (only 8 more days). So if my employer takes long time or tells me that they can not sign it, I want to be ready with Plan B. Can someone suggest what should I do?
1 - should I prepare a simple document with job duties, responsibilities, start date, salary etc that my employer will be willing to sign. So at last moment I can atleast get that signed. Something will be better than nothing.
2 - Should I / (bigger question is can I) ask USCIS to give me more time to respond to RFE?
3. Provide simple letter from employer with an affedavit or something stating that the new job is same / similar as the old job.
Sorry for a long post and thanks for any suggestions.
My attorney received an EVL RFE for my I-485 case. My PD is 2007 EB3 so I don't have any hope of getting GC but I guess they are just pre-adjucating my case.
Here is my situation - I filed my !-485 in Aug 2007 and changed job (without filing any AC-21 paperwork with USCIS) in April 2008. My attorney had looked at new job description and given green signal for change. My entire immigration history of 10 years in US is totally clean with no gaps and with all work autorizations.
Now, my concern is that the letter that my attorney has prepared for my current employer to sign has lot of legal lingo (AC-21 language, lot of CFRs, info related to my LCA and I-140) and has some language to the effect of supporting my LCA and I-140 till my GC is approved. It also states that my current employer was able to afford to pay my salary since the LCA date. My employer is fortune 5 company so money wise there is no problem but my concern is that they may not want to sign such a lengthy (wordy) legal doc without consulting their Immi attorney. I don't have much time to respond (only 8 more days). So if my employer takes long time or tells me that they can not sign it, I want to be ready with Plan B. Can someone suggest what should I do?
1 - should I prepare a simple document with job duties, responsibilities, start date, salary etc that my employer will be willing to sign. So at last moment I can atleast get that signed. Something will be better than nothing.
2 - Should I / (bigger question is can I) ask USCIS to give me more time to respond to RFE?
3. Provide simple letter from employer with an affedavit or something stating that the new job is same / similar as the old job.
Sorry for a long post and thanks for any suggestions.
tattoo puppies and dogs together
Saralayar
12-17 03:44 PM
Take a permanent job which is "same or similar" to the one in the underlying LC.
I do not have a copy of the LC which was filled in PERM. How can I know the job description, so that I can use AC21 with the same job category and description? Any way to get the copy of LC directly from USCIS if the employer don't provide the LC copy?:confused:
I do not have a copy of the LC which was filled in PERM. How can I know the job description, so that I can use AC21 with the same job category and description? Any way to get the copy of LC directly from USCIS if the employer don't provide the LC copy?:confused:
more...
pictures Pictures Of Dogs And Puppies
bostonqa
02-15 07:36 AM
Let�s see, Senate has so far passed Bill #2
And here are some of the bills in numerical order in which they were listed in Senate
3. Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
4. Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
5. College Student Relief Act of 2007
6. CLEAN Energy Act of 2007
7. College Opportunity Act of 2007
8. Rebuilding America's Military Act of 2007
9. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
Also on an average it takes about 10 Business days to debate and vote on bill.
Lookup at the senate calendar (working days week offs etc)
Lets assume (when have things gone right for us?) everything goes according to the order listed above. We have 80 days of work before CIR comes to senate.
Considering that senate takes weeks off (first from Feb 19-23, second from April 2-9). I don�t see how they can start CIR before May at the latest.
Now they might say some of the bills could be a days worth of work, or not necessary bills will be taken up in numerical order etc.
But I ask you again. When was the last time we were lucky?
And here are some of the bills in numerical order in which they were listed in Senate
3. Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
4. Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
5. College Student Relief Act of 2007
6. CLEAN Energy Act of 2007
7. College Opportunity Act of 2007
8. Rebuilding America's Military Act of 2007
9. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
Also on an average it takes about 10 Business days to debate and vote on bill.
Lookup at the senate calendar (working days week offs etc)
Lets assume (when have things gone right for us?) everything goes according to the order listed above. We have 80 days of work before CIR comes to senate.
Considering that senate takes weeks off (first from Feb 19-23, second from April 2-9). I don�t see how they can start CIR before May at the latest.
Now they might say some of the bills could be a days worth of work, or not necessary bills will be taken up in numerical order etc.
But I ask you again. When was the last time we were lucky?
dresses dogs and puppies together.
pappu
06-20 11:39 AM
jansilal...ltnc!!!! how r u?
How are you Yabadaba?
We missed you.. The other day I saw one of your eloquent posts on a site. Wish to see you here more so that this forum is more lively and useful for others.
How are you Yabadaba?
We missed you.. The other day I saw one of your eloquent posts on a site. Wish to see you here more so that this forum is more lively and useful for others.
more...
makeup otherwise puppies i meet Mar
gsc999
09-20 07:17 PM
http://picasaweb.google.com/kannansm/ImmigartionVoiceDCRally18Sep07/photo#5111764333601260802
The guy in black shirt/pant is he a IV member? Next to him is definitely an american Kid. If they indeed are american citizens that listened to our cause and joined the rally, hats off to them.
---
Yes, thats them. Thanks for the find.
IVers do you see my point, Americans are very understanding people. If you can explain your case then they will join you and make you stronger.
Cheers!
The guy in black shirt/pant is he a IV member? Next to him is definitely an american Kid. If they indeed are american citizens that listened to our cause and joined the rally, hats off to them.
---
Yes, thats them. Thanks for the find.
IVers do you see my point, Americans are very understanding people. If you can explain your case then they will join you and make you stronger.
Cheers!
girlfriend Myspace Comment: Dogs, Puppies
abigel
08-07 08:56 PM
You may be right in saying that people should be united, but you cannot and should not FORCE them to be. Censoring threads that you think go against the 'united' theme would be just wrong and would hurt IV more than it would help it.
hairstyles Most dogs, when treated and
voldemar
03-07 02:30 PM
It seems that a solution to a case like that would be the SKIL bill or an amendment to this existing H lawAgree with that. But your language in previous message is completely unacceptable. It was like reading something on NumbersUsa.:(
pappu
12-25 12:02 PM
Here is another tough story :
Name: sanz72
*Applied for my first Labor through Company A in December 1998
*Labor got approved in 2001 march, Filed my I-140 in April.
*Laid Off from the job in July 2001.
* Took job offer with Company B (and a 25K Pay Cut) in July 2001.
* Filed my Labor through Company B in December 2001
* Labor Approved in Feb 2002
* Filed I-140 in March 2002
* I-140 Approved in May 2002
* Filed 485 in June 2002
* Used AC-21 to Join the Client with B's permission in July 2003
* Company B withdrew the the I-140 in December 2004
* I-485 Denied in December 2004
* MTR (I-290A) filed in Jan 2005
* MTR denied in May 2005
* EAD Renewal Denied in May 2005
* MTR approved and Opened in Aug 2005
* EAD Renewed in Aug 2005
* I-485 Approved in Jun 2007
* I-551 Stamped in July
* Card Received in December 2007.
Name: sanz72
*Applied for my first Labor through Company A in December 1998
*Labor got approved in 2001 march, Filed my I-140 in April.
*Laid Off from the job in July 2001.
* Took job offer with Company B (and a 25K Pay Cut) in July 2001.
* Filed my Labor through Company B in December 2001
* Labor Approved in Feb 2002
* Filed I-140 in March 2002
* I-140 Approved in May 2002
* Filed 485 in June 2002
* Used AC-21 to Join the Client with B's permission in July 2003
* Company B withdrew the the I-140 in December 2004
* I-485 Denied in December 2004
* MTR (I-290A) filed in Jan 2005
* MTR denied in May 2005
* EAD Renewal Denied in May 2005
* MTR approved and Opened in Aug 2005
* EAD Renewed in Aug 2005
* I-485 Approved in Jun 2007
* I-551 Stamped in July
* Card Received in December 2007.
eager_immi
01-25 12:49 PM
Even the documet is going to be voluntary. No fear :)
Why don't we just voluntarily mention the amount that we contributed in our signatures ? Since contributions are voluntary, so should be the option of disclosing information on it. When many contributing members start furnishing their contribtion information voluntarily, it becomes the "fashion" and others will follow suit, as no one wants to look like a free-rider.
As for the veracity of the information, we got to trust each other on that and follow an audit policy- I assume the core members/ administrators have the ability to cross-check the contribution information if someone looks suspicious. Anyone caught furnishing false information can be blacklisted. Such a policy minimises the work of the core team, without being overly intrusive.
Why don't we just voluntarily mention the amount that we contributed in our signatures ? Since contributions are voluntary, so should be the option of disclosing information on it. When many contributing members start furnishing their contribtion information voluntarily, it becomes the "fashion" and others will follow suit, as no one wants to look like a free-rider.
As for the veracity of the information, we got to trust each other on that and follow an audit policy- I assume the core members/ administrators have the ability to cross-check the contribution information if someone looks suspicious. Anyone caught furnishing false information can be blacklisted. Such a policy minimises the work of the core team, without being overly intrusive.
