Robert Kumar
12-02 07:38 AM
Thanks a lot for your reply 9 years...
How much time does one really need to prepare to file for labor these days ,please let me know. The time before filing the labor, if everything goes very fast.
How much time does one really need to prepare to file for labor these days ,please let me know. The time before filing the labor, if everything goes very fast.
wallpaper of abies with quotes.
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
sanprabhu
07-20 10:02 AM
Actually it was lost by only 2 votes. Only 95 Senators voted and hence 57 votes would have been enough to carry it through. Really Sad. :(
That only 57 is required is not correct. The vote needs 60 to pass the motion. If no is totaling up only 37 but if yes is 59 still then it would not pass. Also if the senator is absent then it is considered a NO vote.
That only 57 is required is not correct. The vote needs 60 to pass the motion. If no is totaling up only 37 but if yes is 59 still then it would not pass. Also if the senator is absent then it is considered a NO vote.
2011 View : 4260 funny aby quotes.
rajuram
05-24 10:18 PM
Which bills are you talking about? I read most were dropped from Iraq funding bill that passed recently.
We are just drifting my friend..no direction..no hope....
Please contribute IVians. We need your support to lobby for the current bills which have been introduced.
My perspective on contributing to IV, is that I would gladly contribute $100 if there was a chance that I can get my gc a few months faster because of the efforts of IV.
Got GC Stress??
Contribute To IV Today!!
We are just drifting my friend..no direction..no hope....
Please contribute IVians. We need your support to lobby for the current bills which have been introduced.
My perspective on contributing to IV, is that I would gladly contribute $100 if there was a chance that I can get my gc a few months faster because of the efforts of IV.
Got GC Stress??
Contribute To IV Today!!
more...
wandmaker
06-13 10:48 AM
You just paid without exposing your financial information.
$ 100
Receipt ID: 5190-9283-7820-4961
An email with your order summary has been sent to ashokmohanrajes
Great, First post with contribution - Thank you
$ 100
Receipt ID: 5190-9283-7820-4961
An email with your order summary has been sent to ashokmohanrajes
Great, First post with contribution - Thank you
pointlesswait
03-18 01:35 PM
what about: married filing separately..since both me and my wife are on H1.. we filed separetly last year for some vague reasons!
more...
ashutrip
06-21 01:41 PM
I agree with you 100%... no point in being paranoid about what can happen ... if it does we will find a way to deal with it
-M
I am just hoping we do not mis the July Bus :cool:
-M
I am just hoping we do not mis the July Bus :cool:
2010 funny aby quotes. funny
optimystic
09-10 09:36 PM
HR 5882 has the answer for the FIFO problem.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
more...
arthsidhu
09-10 03:33 PM
and for those who can't donate few dollars for their own cause, I leave that that for your own imagination..
People who are working for this cause are not doing for just themselves. It can't be said enough about this rally, but again you have to have some conscious to donate to the rally.
$30,000 needed and we haven't reached halfway yet. Pity the GC seekers. They should be rather called GC whiners.
People who are working for this cause are not doing for just themselves. It can't be said enough about this rally, but again you have to have some conscious to donate to the rally.
$30,000 needed and we haven't reached halfway yet. Pity the GC seekers. They should be rather called GC whiners.
hair quotes for abies
unseenguy
02-14 12:51 PM
No matter how many years it is....its the willingness and responsibility.
Yeah so lets check your willingness and responsibility 6-7 years in your marriage.
Yeah so lets check your willingness and responsibility 6-7 years in your marriage.
more...
punjabi
09-10 08:42 PM
Guys,
Keep the cool. USCIS is very unpredictable as we all have seen. Get ready to see the dates move forward pretty quickly this year! There are more chances to have increased visa numbers and things can only go UP from here on.
Watch the documentray "The Secret" and put your positive thoughts out there...
Keep the cool. USCIS is very unpredictable as we all have seen. Get ready to see the dates move forward pretty quickly this year! There are more chances to have increased visa numbers and things can only go UP from here on.
Watch the documentray "The Secret" and put your positive thoughts out there...
hot images of abies with quotes.
Milind123
09-13 02:24 PM
One more contribution needed for this round. Please make me go from this :( to :D
more...
house of abies with quotes.
rajeev_74
04-25 05:27 PM
1) Can somebody explain what the CORE objective of asking the UCSIS/DOL
to change the Priority date from the date of application of Labor to date of filing H1B is?
2) What is the proposed plan of action to deal with the 100K plus applications already applied for?
Ans 1) Fairness...H1-B transfer becomes a reality...One can look for better Job oppurtunities...otherwise why even allow H1-B transfer when there are hidden GC related problems.
Ans 2) It should be applied to new AOS applications only.
to change the Priority date from the date of application of Labor to date of filing H1B is?
2) What is the proposed plan of action to deal with the 100K plus applications already applied for?
Ans 1) Fairness...H1-B transfer becomes a reality...One can look for better Job oppurtunities...otherwise why even allow H1-B transfer when there are hidden GC related problems.
Ans 2) It should be applied to new AOS applications only.
tattoo funny aby quotes. bushman06
belmontboy
05-13 11:05 PM
� I-140 filed 05/04/2007
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
more...
pictures Mother with newborn aby
GayatriS
01-05 08:22 PM
I don't think there are contradictions. I have read his Businessweek articles. He is researching ways for America to remain competetive and believes that skilled immigrants who get permanent residence are the key.
Listen to the last minute of the video and you will see what his message is.
Listen to the last minute of the video and you will see what his message is.
dresses of abies with quotes.
bpratap
05-15 05:08 PM
I am working with a bank for my new Mortgage. The bank is asking for 3 year continuous VISA (forward) as a requirement.
My situation is H1 + 485 (I-140 Approved)
my current H1 will expire in December 2009, I cannot apply for extension until June 09 (180 days )
but Bank guys are asking for 3 yr VISA, they are not even looking on my H1b Approval letter as there is a line mentioned in there as "This form is not a visa nor may it be used in place of a VISA"
Anybody have similar experience ? and any suggestions of how to approach / explain this to bank guys ?
Appreciate ur views n comments
My situation is H1 + 485 (I-140 Approved)
my current H1 will expire in December 2009, I cannot apply for extension until June 09 (180 days )
but Bank guys are asking for 3 yr VISA, they are not even looking on my H1b Approval letter as there is a line mentioned in there as "This form is not a visa nor may it be used in place of a VISA"
Anybody have similar experience ? and any suggestions of how to approach / explain this to bank guys ?
Appreciate ur views n comments
more...
makeup Inspiring Quotes with Babies
a_paradkar
07-14 01:46 PM
10$ from em 2.
Thanks IV
Thanks IV
girlfriend Quotes about abies search
anilsal
07-16 07:13 AM
of why IV is an organization of its members and THEY make IV's campaigns successful.
hairstyles quotes for abies.
gcadream
02-24 08:47 AM
Dear Sakthisagar
As you said that you applied for H1 extn in 2009 and got extended only for 1 yr instead of 3 yrs [as your I-140 was approved], this means that this yr if suppose you have to apply for H1 extn again that means again the employer has to pay around 4000$ for extn and your have to pay again around 500$ for H4 extn correct ?
As you said that you applied for H1 extn in 2009 and got extended only for 1 yr instead of 3 yrs [as your I-140 was approved], this means that this yr if suppose you have to apply for H1 extn again that means again the employer has to pay around 4000$ for extn and your have to pay again around 500$ for H4 extn correct ?
chi_shark
04-10 12:48 PM
hey, how about doing something a la steve jobs. each post should cost $0.99. ??? what say?
SouthSky
06-02 12:50 PM
My PD EB3 01/15/2005
Applied I140 PP 05/18/2007
Approved I140 05/23/2007
Man I am screwed
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
Applied I140 PP 05/18/2007
Approved I140 05/23/2007
Man I am screwed
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
No comments:
Post a Comment