eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
04-30 02:25 PM
I thought we could do a AC21 for h1b or EAD and your latest post suggests I cannot ?
chintu25
08-19 05:45 PM
Excellent job guys :)
insbaby
09-02 11:17 PM
I will be taking up a new job and I have been told by the new employer that, benifits will start after 30 days.
I presently have insurence through my employer. My understnading is that, insurence stops the day I leave the present employer. Now how do i handle the stop gap in insurence to be on safer side...??
Any help is appreciated...
You can choose to continue the insurance, the employer should provide this option. It looks expensive, but it is just for a month time, on the safe side, you can take this.
I presently have insurence through my employer. My understnading is that, insurence stops the day I leave the present employer. Now how do i handle the stop gap in insurence to be on safer side...??
Any help is appreciated...
You can choose to continue the insurance, the employer should provide this option. It looks expensive, but it is just for a month time, on the safe side, you can take this.
eb3India
09-25 10:19 AM
Here is the mail from AILA,
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
more...
uslegals
08-20 03:39 PM
A consulting company that i had approached in early 2007 had filed my
H1B on April 1st '07 for which i only have a receipt # as yet. This H1 is obviosuly under the CAP. USCIS decision reg. H1 approval is still pending.
I was eligible to file for AOS / EAD thru my husbands GC petition and now do not want to take any job on the H1B with the consulting company. I have a offer from another company....i can join then when i get my EAD. They are willing to wait till i get my EAD.
Some concerns i need help with -
1)How does the contracting company withdraw or VOID my H1. ?
2) Do we have to wait for 797 approval to void it.? Or can they VOID it using only the RECEIPT # ?
3) If H1B is approved in the next few weeks then does the petitioner have to void it before the start of fiscal year - October 1st 2007.?
5) Does a attorney need to be involved to withdraw this case ? What is the exact process of nullifying this H1B.? Are there any specific forms to be filled out.???
6) What kind of documentation would i need from the petitioner who is withdrawing my H1B...Like what evidence do i need to get from petitioner that he / she has actually withdrawn this.??
Also are there any DOL or USCIS rules which state that - the employer has to provide me with copies of the LCA, I-129 petition, Letter that he writes for voiding the H1B. I should be entitled to recieve copies from the employer right..?? allthough i will not work for them..! Can somebody direct me to a link on DOL or USCIS which tells me that the employer should give me all these copies.
Thank you!
H1B on April 1st '07 for which i only have a receipt # as yet. This H1 is obviosuly under the CAP. USCIS decision reg. H1 approval is still pending.
I was eligible to file for AOS / EAD thru my husbands GC petition and now do not want to take any job on the H1B with the consulting company. I have a offer from another company....i can join then when i get my EAD. They are willing to wait till i get my EAD.
Some concerns i need help with -
1)How does the contracting company withdraw or VOID my H1. ?
2) Do we have to wait for 797 approval to void it.? Or can they VOID it using only the RECEIPT # ?
3) If H1B is approved in the next few weeks then does the petitioner have to void it before the start of fiscal year - October 1st 2007.?
5) Does a attorney need to be involved to withdraw this case ? What is the exact process of nullifying this H1B.? Are there any specific forms to be filled out.???
6) What kind of documentation would i need from the petitioner who is withdrawing my H1B...Like what evidence do i need to get from petitioner that he / she has actually withdrawn this.??
Also are there any DOL or USCIS rules which state that - the employer has to provide me with copies of the LCA, I-129 petition, Letter that he writes for voiding the H1B. I should be entitled to recieve copies from the employer right..?? allthough i will not work for them..! Can somebody direct me to a link on DOL or USCIS which tells me that the employer should give me all these copies.
Thank you!
karthkc
05-11 02:46 PM
This is a common scenario for some IT folks who were here during the downturn from 2001 through 2005 and is not a big deal in your case.
USCIS may or may not check your entire status history. My gut feel is if they have all your W2's during that period and someone takes a closer look at it and sees a discrepancy (if there is one) in terms of actual income and the minumum income based on your H1B annual salary you should have made for that year, then you may have an issue. However, that is not likely and I have not seen cases along those lines yet. If anyone in this forum have come across such a situation, please post and let us know specifics if you can.
In that extreme case, get a hold of a good lawyer if you dont have one and have them craft an appropriate response to the RFE since it is important that the right policy and regulations information is mentioned in the response letter.
Hope that clears it a bit!
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate it.
Well as you said if I went to India after those 5 months(when I was on bench) than that period of 5 months when I was on bench will be wiped out(it will be gone,clean). It means that USCIS will check my status after my last entry in to US!!
OR they may check everything when ever I was in US including when I was on bench(including my first entry into US to till date i.e. From Feb 2005 - Till date)????
I went to India in Nov 2006 & came back, so in that case my old records would be clean. B'cos I was on bench for 5 months in 2005.
Correct me if I am wrong on this.
Also as you said this will come in case of I-485 & USCIS might overlook this & may send RFE!! Any idea how to respond that kind of RFE??
I will really appreciate your response.
Thanks.
USCIS may or may not check your entire status history. My gut feel is if they have all your W2's during that period and someone takes a closer look at it and sees a discrepancy (if there is one) in terms of actual income and the minumum income based on your H1B annual salary you should have made for that year, then you may have an issue. However, that is not likely and I have not seen cases along those lines yet. If anyone in this forum have come across such a situation, please post and let us know specifics if you can.
In that extreme case, get a hold of a good lawyer if you dont have one and have them craft an appropriate response to the RFE since it is important that the right policy and regulations information is mentioned in the response letter.
Hope that clears it a bit!
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate it.
Well as you said if I went to India after those 5 months(when I was on bench) than that period of 5 months when I was on bench will be wiped out(it will be gone,clean). It means that USCIS will check my status after my last entry in to US!!
OR they may check everything when ever I was in US including when I was on bench(including my first entry into US to till date i.e. From Feb 2005 - Till date)????
I went to India in Nov 2006 & came back, so in that case my old records would be clean. B'cos I was on bench for 5 months in 2005.
Correct me if I am wrong on this.
Also as you said this will come in case of I-485 & USCIS might overlook this & may send RFE!! Any idea how to respond that kind of RFE??
I will really appreciate your response.
Thanks.
more...
paskal
12-14 12:41 AM
Hi all,
Between this thread and the main chapter thread, we have now accumulated a handful of members, looks like we are all set to be an active chapter!
couple of things:
1. IV IL chapter has invited us to their conference call, please check the thread called "Members in MN" under the IV agenda forum, if anyone can participate and report back here it would be great.
2. Conference Call: Anyone have dates or times in mind? btw pappu, question for you: does iv have a way of facilitating these calls?
Looking forward to hearing from you all, together we will surely achieve our objectives...
Puneet
Between this thread and the main chapter thread, we have now accumulated a handful of members, looks like we are all set to be an active chapter!
couple of things:
1. IV IL chapter has invited us to their conference call, please check the thread called "Members in MN" under the IV agenda forum, if anyone can participate and report back here it would be great.
2. Conference Call: Anyone have dates or times in mind? btw pappu, question for you: does iv have a way of facilitating these calls?
Looking forward to hearing from you all, together we will surely achieve our objectives...
Puneet
ramreddy
12-26 07:51 AM
Just out of curiosity how is it that you got an approval in Sep 09 with your priority date? I too am keen to know , assuming your PD is 08-05 as indicated above
more...
hkimmi
09-25 03:31 PM
GC4ALL
I am not sure of your exact question as it is a bit ambiguous but here is what I read/understand
You can port an earlier priority date of an old I-140 even if the job description changes or your category has changed (EB-2 or EB-3). But this is only possible when you are applying for your I-485 (your old PD is current) by attaching a copy of your earlier approved I-140.
Also the underlying labor application/I-140 should be valid and not be substituted/revoked or cancelled. Again, check with an attorney but this is my understanding
Can�t we port our PD if our employer cancels our I-140 and reuse our approved labor.., I remember reading Once I-140 is approved PD is in candidates back pack.
Gurus please confirm this �, I hope lot of people might be waiting to hear this �
I am not sure of your exact question as it is a bit ambiguous but here is what I read/understand
You can port an earlier priority date of an old I-140 even if the job description changes or your category has changed (EB-2 or EB-3). But this is only possible when you are applying for your I-485 (your old PD is current) by attaching a copy of your earlier approved I-140.
Also the underlying labor application/I-140 should be valid and not be substituted/revoked or cancelled. Again, check with an attorney but this is my understanding
Can�t we port our PD if our employer cancels our I-140 and reuse our approved labor.., I remember reading Once I-140 is approved PD is in candidates back pack.
Gurus please confirm this �, I hope lot of people might be waiting to hear this �
indio0617
01-12 02:31 PM
I can understand your concerns. A few years back we had similar questions and concerns when my MIL travelled. She was old and had never travelled alone before. Could not speak any english either. We thought it was best for her to travel with wheelchair assistance and it worked good. She has travelled twice ( on lufthansa) with no issues.
One thing we did to help her was give a covering letter that she could present to the airline staff which would explain her needs if any while travelling. We also prepared and gave her several flash cards (one liners) written in both the local Indian language alongwith the English translation for her to communicate if she needs anything on the flight.
Non -verbal communication works well sometimes. It worked for us.
One thing we did to help her was give a covering letter that she could present to the airline staff which would explain her needs if any while travelling. We also prepared and gave her several flash cards (one liners) written in both the local Indian language alongwith the English translation for her to communicate if she needs anything on the flight.
Non -verbal communication works well sometimes. It worked for us.
more...
karanp25
07-11 03:08 PM
Dude, in a bunch of applications - some are approvable while others require more information. Do you want them to keep waiting on unapprovable applications, with old PDs, while the clock is ticking and the unused visas go waste before Oct 2008? Guess not?
That's why they advanced the PDs to give some room to approve later PD applications that are otherwise approvable. They do not have any math involved. They were playing "inky-pinky-ponky" to pick a month & yr to set EB-2 cutoff dates for Aug VB - the only logic was to advance it to a comfortable point--nothing beyond tht. They don't care about few months here and there, and don't care if they raise hopes of some immigrations or shatter hopes of others.
Is it just me missing something? Does it make sense?
Yes. Its simple math. But if it was 10K visas a year, then why did they have to jump forward by more than 2 yrs? Nobody knows how USCIS works internally. The math that v have and the one that they have differ a lot and unexpected things (for good or bad) happen all the time.
That's why they advanced the PDs to give some room to approve later PD applications that are otherwise approvable. They do not have any math involved. They were playing "inky-pinky-ponky" to pick a month & yr to set EB-2 cutoff dates for Aug VB - the only logic was to advance it to a comfortable point--nothing beyond tht. They don't care about few months here and there, and don't care if they raise hopes of some immigrations or shatter hopes of others.
Is it just me missing something? Does it make sense?
Yes. Its simple math. But if it was 10K visas a year, then why did they have to jump forward by more than 2 yrs? Nobody knows how USCIS works internally. The math that v have and the one that they have differ a lot and unexpected things (for good or bad) happen all the time.
rocky17105
07-29 11:19 AM
of course used the sub labor to get 2005 EB2 priority date and moved to this employer. We filed the 140 on july 1st but some document was missing so it came back and then lawyer filed it again which reached uscis timely by 16th July 2007. I am still with the same employer since 2007 and yes unfortunately the employer is found in h1b fraud later but still havent proven guilty so not sure if company is blacklisted or not.
I understand why you are asking all these questions but my question is just can we reopen 485 based on wrong denial from USCIS side.
I understand why you are asking all these questions but my question is just can we reopen 485 based on wrong denial from USCIS side.
more...
statuslaw
01-31 01:33 PM
DOS tel number: 202-663-1225 then 1 0 0, and tell your passport number. That is all.
It is easier to get connected to DOS visa specialist at morning time (US eastern time).
[QUOTE=lost_in_gc_land;218762]Hi statuslaw,
Can you share all your experience and discussions with the DOS and their contact information for my case? Thank you
QUOTE]
It is easier to get connected to DOS visa specialist at morning time (US eastern time).
[QUOTE=lost_in_gc_land;218762]Hi statuslaw,
Can you share all your experience and discussions with the DOS and their contact information for my case? Thank you
QUOTE]
grupak
02-06 11:46 AM
AFAIK you should be able to get the pay raise mid year even in a university, however you might have to file an amendment to your H1B if it is not the usual inflation adjustments.
Usually amendments are filled when there is a material change like new location because it invalidates the underlying old labor. There is no clear cut rule but some lawyers feel 10% pay increase is borderline. If there is a title change you also might need an amendment even though duties in universities hardly change from the usual teaching and research.
Filing an amendment is easy from what I remember.
And, yes, I am familiar with the university system.
Usually amendments are filled when there is a material change like new location because it invalidates the underlying old labor. There is no clear cut rule but some lawyers feel 10% pay increase is borderline. If there is a title change you also might need an amendment even though duties in universities hardly change from the usual teaching and research.
Filing an amendment is easy from what I remember.
And, yes, I am familiar with the university system.
more...
sivaramakrishna
07-09 10:50 AM
Happiness is Important in Life.We should live there , where we feel happy.Again what makes a person happy depends on that individual.We should be able to differentiate between Real Happiness and Pseudo Happiness.
jkays94
05-26 05:02 PM
I'm puzzled that there has been a slow reaction to the Bernie Sander's killer amendment that was disguised as a scholarship fund which has always been there and has benefited many Americans and the National Science Foundation. None of the faxes have been amended neither have the emails, we're asking for good things which are only likely to benefit a few but leave many others in peril. We need to find a way to cushion the effect of this amendment and at the same time highlight that the H1 program is not what it has been vilified to be.
Since the U.S. government imposed a $500 training and scholarship fee on H-1B skilled foreign-born professionals hired by employers, U.S. companies have paid more than $1 billion in fees that have funded more than 40,000 scholarships for U.S. students in math and science. The fees obtained from employers have also funded hands-on science programs for 75,000 middle and high school students and 3,000 teachers. In addition, more than 55,000 U.S. workers and professionals have received training through the H-1B fees paid by companies.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
Since the U.S. government imposed a $500 training and scholarship fee on H-1B skilled foreign-born professionals hired by employers, U.S. companies have paid more than $1 billion in fees that have funded more than 40,000 scholarships for U.S. students in math and science. The fees obtained from employers have also funded hands-on science programs for 75,000 middle and high school students and 3,000 teachers. In addition, more than 55,000 U.S. workers and professionals have received training through the H-1B fees paid by companies.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
more...
raysaikat
07-10 08:50 PM
Hello,
I currently hold H1b visa (cap quota), i have an offer from a non profit organization and they are willing to sponsor for my H1b (non cap as this is from a non profit org). I'd like to know will there be any problem if in future i plan to move to a company that will sponsor h1b (cap). How difficult is to transfer from non cap h1 to cap h1?
There is nothing called "transfer". Every time the employer makes a new H1-B petition on behalf of the employee. There is no extra difficulty when you plan to move from your current job to another position that is subject to cap. The new employer will simply file a new H1-B petition.
I read online that if i plan to move from a non-cap h1 to cap h1 in future i have to apply in April under the general quota and wait until Oct to start work again.
This is not true in all cases (including your case). The rule is that if you have once counted in the last 6 years, then you are not subject to cap again. This however also means that you will only be able to get the remaining years from the 6 years limit. For instance, suppose you were counted the first time 5 years before. Then when you again another H1-B, although you will not be subject to cap, you will be able to remain in H1-B only for 1 year. If you do something to reset your H1-B clock (by staying outside US for 1 year, for example), then you will again be subject to cap.
Here is the actual language of the law:
(7) 2/ Any alien who has already been counted within the 6 years prior to the approval of a petition described in subsection (c), toward the numerical limitations of paragraph (1)(A)shall not again be counted toward those limitations unless the alien would be eligible for a full 6 years of authorized admission at the time the petition is filed. Where multiple petitions are approved for 1 alien, that alien shall be counted only once.
I highly recommend that you read the 8 CFR from uscis.gov.
What you "heard" is true for a person who never was on H1-B, and starts his/her career in a cap-exempt position. That person, when s/he wants to move to a non-cap-exempt position, will be subject to cap.
though i can work until the petition is pending.
I'd really appreciate any advise...
Thanks
Raj
I currently hold H1b visa (cap quota), i have an offer from a non profit organization and they are willing to sponsor for my H1b (non cap as this is from a non profit org). I'd like to know will there be any problem if in future i plan to move to a company that will sponsor h1b (cap). How difficult is to transfer from non cap h1 to cap h1?
There is nothing called "transfer". Every time the employer makes a new H1-B petition on behalf of the employee. There is no extra difficulty when you plan to move from your current job to another position that is subject to cap. The new employer will simply file a new H1-B petition.
I read online that if i plan to move from a non-cap h1 to cap h1 in future i have to apply in April under the general quota and wait until Oct to start work again.
This is not true in all cases (including your case). The rule is that if you have once counted in the last 6 years, then you are not subject to cap again. This however also means that you will only be able to get the remaining years from the 6 years limit. For instance, suppose you were counted the first time 5 years before. Then when you again another H1-B, although you will not be subject to cap, you will be able to remain in H1-B only for 1 year. If you do something to reset your H1-B clock (by staying outside US for 1 year, for example), then you will again be subject to cap.
Here is the actual language of the law:
(7) 2/ Any alien who has already been counted within the 6 years prior to the approval of a petition described in subsection (c), toward the numerical limitations of paragraph (1)(A)shall not again be counted toward those limitations unless the alien would be eligible for a full 6 years of authorized admission at the time the petition is filed. Where multiple petitions are approved for 1 alien, that alien shall be counted only once.
I highly recommend that you read the 8 CFR from uscis.gov.
What you "heard" is true for a person who never was on H1-B, and starts his/her career in a cap-exempt position. That person, when s/he wants to move to a non-cap-exempt position, will be subject to cap.
though i can work until the petition is pending.
I'd really appreciate any advise...
Thanks
Raj
GCAmigo
12-21 12:36 PM
>>>How about setting up your own consulting company?
Nothing prevents you from doing it while on H1!
Nothing prevents you from doing it while on H1!
msyedy
02-05 01:38 PM
I have a old EB3 PD Sept 2003 with Company A , and a new EB2 and I140 approved from Company B.
Can I ask my old company to file for I140 so that I may use the Old PD.
How can I bear the expenses of the USCIS and attorney's fees, given I am not working at company A.
Any clues would help.
I guess the old labor will be invalid by now as it has been already been over 45 after approval.
Ask a lawyer, because due to this labor substitution rule now you might have a problem. (" A GOOD LAWYER IS A SOLUTION HERE")
What do you mean by how can you bear the expenses. What a ?
Do what your company A is asking. I don't think that company A would file it for free.
Give it out of your pocket, that is how you bear it, work at a gas station, 7 eleven if you have to make more money to give him
Can I ask my old company to file for I140 so that I may use the Old PD.
How can I bear the expenses of the USCIS and attorney's fees, given I am not working at company A.
Any clues would help.
I guess the old labor will be invalid by now as it has been already been over 45 after approval.
Ask a lawyer, because due to this labor substitution rule now you might have a problem. (" A GOOD LAWYER IS A SOLUTION HERE")
What do you mean by how can you bear the expenses. What a ?
Do what your company A is asking. I don't think that company A would file it for free.
Give it out of your pocket, that is how you bear it, work at a gas station, 7 eleven if you have to make more money to give him
bijualex29
03-24 12:48 PM
I am wrong in my number. I added 10% to EB-1,2 and 3 all separately
ultimate_champ
11-29 03:24 PM
Agreed to the points above.
However my new offer is also with the same employer, just different team and location. The HR, Immigration Dept, lawyers etc are all the same.
Im not changing my company - but just the team & location.
However my new offer is also with the same employer, just different team and location. The HR, Immigration Dept, lawyers etc are all the same.
Im not changing my company - but just the team & location.
0 comments:
Post a Comment