up_guy
01-07 09:01 PM
Memphis TN..
Please add me in local chapter
Please add me in local chapter
kondur_007
08-16 06:29 PM
Hello everyone -
I am planning to change my job and would like to seek some advice. I already used AC21 once without informing USCIS, and now would like to do it again. I would like to seek advice on couple of issues:
1. I would like to do this without informing USCIS and worry about a response if and and when I get RFE. However, new employer has E-Verify system. Would them checking my eligibility to work through E-verify make it certain that I would get an RFE for employment verification?? In other words, E-Verify tells USCIS that one has changed employment? or E-verify and 485 have no connection?
2. My new job is in the same engineering field; however, there is still a big difference in salary owing to additional managerial duties. Labor was done based on technical responsibilities in engineering field, new job involved technical as well as business responsibilities in the same field. With years going by, I am taking on more and more project/division management experience and that is what the new position would entail.
Original title - Transportation Analyst/Engineer with 55K as salary
New Title - Director of Transportation Systems and Services Engineering with 135K as salary
Based on my research, the job needs to be in the same occupational classification. The original SOC code is 17-2051 - Civil Engineer. The new SOC could be same 17-2051 or could be classified as 11-9140 Architectural and Engineering Managers owing to managerial duties. However, the new job also has technical aspect to it since I will be responsible for sound technical design for the product/services we will prepare.
Can you guys please give your thoughs on these two issues. Thank you in advance for your time and help.
best,
I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge I can answer as follows:
1. As far as I know, E-verify does not speak with I485 system. Even if it does, it should not be a big deal as you can always reply to the RFE about EVL.
2. Similarity of jobs is a major issue in your case. This needs to be very very carefully evaluated by a good lawyer, as to me (and I am not a lawyer) these two jobs sound totally different. There is a major salary difference that will need to be justified as well. If I were to be you, I will definitely have it evaluated by a good lawyer before making the switch as this can potentially put the entire GC process at risk.
Good Luck.
I am planning to change my job and would like to seek some advice. I already used AC21 once without informing USCIS, and now would like to do it again. I would like to seek advice on couple of issues:
1. I would like to do this without informing USCIS and worry about a response if and and when I get RFE. However, new employer has E-Verify system. Would them checking my eligibility to work through E-verify make it certain that I would get an RFE for employment verification?? In other words, E-Verify tells USCIS that one has changed employment? or E-verify and 485 have no connection?
2. My new job is in the same engineering field; however, there is still a big difference in salary owing to additional managerial duties. Labor was done based on technical responsibilities in engineering field, new job involved technical as well as business responsibilities in the same field. With years going by, I am taking on more and more project/division management experience and that is what the new position would entail.
Original title - Transportation Analyst/Engineer with 55K as salary
New Title - Director of Transportation Systems and Services Engineering with 135K as salary
Based on my research, the job needs to be in the same occupational classification. The original SOC code is 17-2051 - Civil Engineer. The new SOC could be same 17-2051 or could be classified as 11-9140 Architectural and Engineering Managers owing to managerial duties. However, the new job also has technical aspect to it since I will be responsible for sound technical design for the product/services we will prepare.
Can you guys please give your thoughs on these two issues. Thank you in advance for your time and help.
best,
I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge I can answer as follows:
1. As far as I know, E-verify does not speak with I485 system. Even if it does, it should not be a big deal as you can always reply to the RFE about EVL.
2. Similarity of jobs is a major issue in your case. This needs to be very very carefully evaluated by a good lawyer, as to me (and I am not a lawyer) these two jobs sound totally different. There is a major salary difference that will need to be justified as well. If I were to be you, I will definitely have it evaluated by a good lawyer before making the switch as this can potentially put the entire GC process at risk.
Good Luck.
jonty_11
02-19 12:32 PM
As per immigration-law.com..Senate may work on CIR in March 07 and hand it over to House by APril 07....House may however sit on it for years on end...
02/18/2007: Need for Immigration Reform and Concerns with Growing Gridlock in Legislations in the Congress
The Democrats launched a new Congress with aggressive platforms and legislative agenda on January 4, 2007. Madame Pelosi of the House set the first 100-hour legislative agenda and the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid presented on the Senate floor ten legislative bills as top priority for the first few months of the Senate.
However, immersed in the party politics, the Congress left the Hill yesterday, Saturday, for a week long break without achieving a lot because of the gridlock it had faced in the Congress. Samo, Samo Washington politics involving the Republicans and Democrats. It practically means that the Congress wll not resume the active legislative activities until March 2007.
S. 9, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, adopted by the Senate floor, is in the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. The newly elected Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Leahy, reportedly set the CIR as one of the top agenda of the Judiciary Committee for March 2007 and the Democratic leaders reportedly determined to pass the CIR by April 2007 and quickly send it over to the House for its prompt action. How beautiful the agenda of the new Congress.
We want to watch carefully how closely the leaders of the House and Senate will follow through the agenda. In a way, from the perspectives of this immigration legislation agenda, we are relieved that the Congress was over with the most serious road block to the Congress, to wit, rebuke of Bush's resurge in Iraq.
02/18/2007: Need for Immigration Reform and Concerns with Growing Gridlock in Legislations in the Congress
The Democrats launched a new Congress with aggressive platforms and legislative agenda on January 4, 2007. Madame Pelosi of the House set the first 100-hour legislative agenda and the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid presented on the Senate floor ten legislative bills as top priority for the first few months of the Senate.
However, immersed in the party politics, the Congress left the Hill yesterday, Saturday, for a week long break without achieving a lot because of the gridlock it had faced in the Congress. Samo, Samo Washington politics involving the Republicans and Democrats. It practically means that the Congress wll not resume the active legislative activities until March 2007.
S. 9, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, adopted by the Senate floor, is in the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. The newly elected Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Leahy, reportedly set the CIR as one of the top agenda of the Judiciary Committee for March 2007 and the Democratic leaders reportedly determined to pass the CIR by April 2007 and quickly send it over to the House for its prompt action. How beautiful the agenda of the new Congress.
We want to watch carefully how closely the leaders of the House and Senate will follow through the agenda. In a way, from the perspectives of this immigration legislation agenda, we are relieved that the Congress was over with the most serious road block to the Congress, to wit, rebuke of Bush's resurge in Iraq.
dealsnet
01-05 08:16 AM
If your extension paper come with I-94 attached, take it and staple it on your passport. (That is your new I-94). White paper need to keep in safe place. If it is expired, no value for it.
Hello:
I have a last minute doubt - my H1B stamp on the passport is expired, so is the white I94 card. I have a valid I797 extension.
Can I use automatic revalidation? I am in doubt because the white I94 card is expired and I will have to present it to the officer at the port of entry.
Thanks.
Hello:
I have a last minute doubt - my H1B stamp on the passport is expired, so is the white I94 card. I have a valid I797 extension.
Can I use automatic revalidation? I am in doubt because the white I94 card is expired and I will have to present it to the officer at the port of entry.
Thanks.
more...
adde72
07-05 11:25 PM
Whatever the conditions put for immigration number of people to work in USA is increasing. Yearly there is 20 to 30% increase in F1 Visa for past 3 years . And 130k H1b applications also tells the story. Still USA is topmost market for India and China. USA depends on India and China. But opposite also true(India and China dependent on USA). The change of equation unlikely for many decades. Many European countries and Gulf countries are giving temporary visa and no green card. Still huge demand for working in those countries. Immigration is USA is for mutual benefit not just for country but also for immigrants. If dollar value goes down 20 rupees then outsourced jobs will come back to USA and Indian economy also will crash. So ,for developing countries welfare USA economy should be stable
Indian economy is not depend on the dollar value !!!! wake up ..Its not the IT companys any more ..there are infrastructure ,reality and services sectors which are driving india now...our imports cost more than exports ...
Indian economy is not depend on the dollar value !!!! wake up ..Its not the IT companys any more ..there are infrastructure ,reality and services sectors which are driving india now...our imports cost more than exports ...
coopheal
12-01 07:20 PM
Contributed $100 for Dec.
Transaction ID: 8P72***********
Transaction ID: 8P72***********
more...
viva
11-02 08:22 PM
Yes, Arjun is now chargin $75 an hour as he is moved into a bigger office. I have used him too. Did not actually retain him, but he offers clear and concise advice without trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation and trying to set you up for more consultation services.
bluez25
07-22 06:03 PM
Tinku,
How can you be so sure that I should be ok even when the dates move back? any links for me to read on information...
How can you be so sure that I should be ok even when the dates move back? any links for me to read on information...
more...
nosightofgc
04-05 09:59 AM
I am scheduled to close my refinancing (changing from conventional to FHA). Quicken Loan processed my loan - of course their charges are a lot more than others. The point is, I did not face any objections so far due to EAD status. Of course they asked my EAD copy a few times. Hope this helps!
gc_on_demand
04-30 03:01 PM
Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?� is live now.
Here is link. Will some body hear it and post the updates?
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3793
Thanks in advance.
Alan Greenspan is talking about H1b and other highly skilled immigrant's issues. Also mentioned about Housing Crisis.
Here is link. Will some body hear it and post the updates?
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3793
Thanks in advance.
Alan Greenspan is talking about H1b and other highly skilled immigrant's issues. Also mentioned about Housing Crisis.
more...
seahawks
04-28 11:15 AM
oops, I read your post again, you said non premium processing, sorry, I dont have that information. I filed mine through premium processing since I waited 4 years just for my labor.
vinabath
07-02 03:10 PM
USCIS made my lazy paralegal work overtime for 2 weeks.
USCIS used the famous 'SHOCK and AWE' stratefy on us.
USCIS used the famous 'SHOCK and AWE' stratefy on us.
more...
gg_ny
10-20 07:31 AM
You need to file tranfer papers anyway when you move. That means you have new H1B approval, and thus a new stamp is required when you travel out.
I would appreciate, if any of you can answer this question either through their personal experience or their knowledge.
I recently got my H1b visa renewed(& transferred) for 3 years based on a previous I-140 approved from my earlier job. I would like to get my H1b visa stamping done either at Mexico or Canada based on the current validity(for 3 years) of my H1b approval. If after stamping, I change companies will I need to get a new stamping to reflect the new company on my passport? If I don't need to get a new stamping, then if I travel to my home country and then return to US, will it cause a problem at the border post if my H1b approval paper shows a different company than that on the passport? Your advice in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
I would appreciate, if any of you can answer this question either through their personal experience or their knowledge.
I recently got my H1b visa renewed(& transferred) for 3 years based on a previous I-140 approved from my earlier job. I would like to get my H1b visa stamping done either at Mexico or Canada based on the current validity(for 3 years) of my H1b approval. If after stamping, I change companies will I need to get a new stamping to reflect the new company on my passport? If I don't need to get a new stamping, then if I travel to my home country and then return to US, will it cause a problem at the border post if my H1b approval paper shows a different company than that on the passport? Your advice in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
abe1
06-23 12:28 AM
ndbhatt,
If I read your profile right, you arrived in US in April 2005 flied for LC in July 07. I think that is a different situation than someone working in H1B since 1999 (F1 since 1996). Do you know anyone in H1B since 1999 and without an EAD option? I suppose waiting 14 years is very different than waiting 5 years..
If I read your profile right, you arrived in US in April 2005 flied for LC in July 07. I think that is a different situation than someone working in H1B since 1999 (F1 since 1996). Do you know anyone in H1B since 1999 and without an EAD option? I suppose waiting 14 years is very different than waiting 5 years..
more...
gc28262
07-30 07:07 AM
Success Story: Showing a Valid Employer-Employee Relationship (http://shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationaugust2010.html#5)
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
reddy_h
08-20 09:57 PM
just ignore H-1. you need not worry as you filed AOS. you need the H-1 approval only if you want to keep maintaining H-1 status by filing H-1 transfer with your new employer otherwise you can just ignore the H-1 you already filed. if you still want to revoke the H-1 petition, only your employer can do it as it is your company's petition.
more...
msandhu
08-07 04:33 PM
You can do landing and H1-Stamping at the same time in canada. You do not need stamped visa to come back to US from Canada as long as you have your H1 extension papers with you and you come back in 30 days
gimme_GC2006
07-02 04:23 PM
they give a damn about it.
Why would people want to know what happened to people like us when they are busy watching coverage of what Paris hilton did in County jail.
Why would people want to know what happened to people like us when they are busy watching coverage of what Paris hilton did in County jail.
sunnymit
08-10 02:11 PM
Well we had Hindu marriage in May. We have our marriage card, pictures, witnesses etc. So I was under the impression that I would be able to get certificate from registrar. Here is info I got
"
Under the Hindu Marriage Act:
Parties to the marriage have to apply to the Registrar in whose jurisdiction the marriage is solemnised or to the Registrar in whose jurisdiction either party to the marriage has been residing at least for six months immediately preceding the date of marriage. Both the parties have to appear before the Registrar along with their parents or guardians or other witnesses within one month from the date of marriage. There is a provision for condonation of delay up to 5 years, by the Registrar, and thereafter by the District Registrar concerned."
Hindu marriage registration in India is fine. I was wondering how would one get it registered here in US. I would think you would have to marry here to get it registered. Right?
"
Under the Hindu Marriage Act:
Parties to the marriage have to apply to the Registrar in whose jurisdiction the marriage is solemnised or to the Registrar in whose jurisdiction either party to the marriage has been residing at least for six months immediately preceding the date of marriage. Both the parties have to appear before the Registrar along with their parents or guardians or other witnesses within one month from the date of marriage. There is a provision for condonation of delay up to 5 years, by the Registrar, and thereafter by the District Registrar concerned."
Hindu marriage registration in India is fine. I was wondering how would one get it registered here in US. I would think you would have to marry here to get it registered. Right?
northstar
05-10 08:07 PM
I just applied for my little one yesterday.
fingers crossed!
Can't believe getting usa passport for my little one required two page application and just the birthcert, But for PIO they need everything in the world!
Yeah, because you applied for US passport for a US citizen :D, whereas PIO was permanent entry card for a foreign national. Naturally more documentation is required where foreign nationals are involved, look at your own green card process :D
fingers crossed!
Can't believe getting usa passport for my little one required two page application and just the birthcert, But for PIO they need everything in the world!
Yeah, because you applied for US passport for a US citizen :D, whereas PIO was permanent entry card for a foreign national. Naturally more documentation is required where foreign nationals are involved, look at your own green card process :D
mmk123
05-01 03:04 PM
What do you mean by a line breaker? Porting from EB3 to EB2 by satisfying all eligibility criteria is exactly valid and lawful.
Our problem is not anyone who is porting but the bottleneck created by current immigration policies (which still function to pretend we are still in 19th century and inaction by congress over the years. Let's pursue congress to take our cause.
Our problem is not anyone who is porting but the bottleneck created by current immigration policies (which still function to pretend we are still in 19th century and inaction by congress over the years. Let's pursue congress to take our cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment