msp1976
10-16 01:23 PM
Last sentence in this article: "However, given the anticipated difficulty in reaching an agreement on comprehensive reform, SKIL Act supporters likely must find an alternative legislative vehicle during the lame-duck session to pass limited relief for highly-educated workers."
What alternative legislative vehicle are they talking about?
Adding a few clauses to one of the appropriations bills maybe...
The only bills scheduled to get through would be the essential spending bills..
What alternative legislative vehicle are they talking about?
Adding a few clauses to one of the appropriations bills maybe...
The only bills scheduled to get through would be the essential spending bills..
wallpaper Mature Korean Women
manderson
10-16 12:18 PM
I think the major bone of contention among the legislators is what to do about the illegal immigrants currently in the country. Amnesty OR no amnsesty is the major debate. Other than that both are in a common frame of mind (in some way) one way or the other regarding - border enforcement, legal immigration, retrogression relief. Now, it looks like there is a common agreement that the skillful legal immigration issue has to be separated from the illgegal immigration related Amnesty OR no Amnesty debate. Hopefully we should see something positive in the next few months. This article seems to indicate in that direction since they have agreed upon one more item, border enforcement -
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/7f4d7596b0572ba886256e3100809439/199e25ebc018639f852571fd004bb54d?OpenDocument
Last sentence in this article: "However, given the anticipated difficulty in reaching an agreement on comprehensive reform, SKIL Act supporters likely must find an alternative legislative vehicle during the lame-duck session to pass limited relief for highly-educated workers."
What alternative legislative vehicle are they talking about?
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/7f4d7596b0572ba886256e3100809439/199e25ebc018639f852571fd004bb54d?OpenDocument
Last sentence in this article: "However, given the anticipated difficulty in reaching an agreement on comprehensive reform, SKIL Act supporters likely must find an alternative legislative vehicle during the lame-duck session to pass limited relief for highly-educated workers."
What alternative legislative vehicle are they talking about?
reddymjm
06-07 09:18 AM
reddymjm,
I thought that we have to send our I-485 applications to NSC regardless of which state you are from.
Is that not true? How come your friend sent it to TSC?
Also, what do you mean by "Nebraska had a 6 day lag till Jan 1st"?
Thanks.
It depends on where ur I140 approval came from. What I mean by lag is they receive the application on 1st jun, they are working on assigning the lin # after 6 days. If they were at the same pace they should start working on the new I485 recived on Jun 1st today.
I thought that we have to send our I-485 applications to NSC regardless of which state you are from.
Is that not true? How come your friend sent it to TSC?
Also, what do you mean by "Nebraska had a 6 day lag till Jan 1st"?
Thanks.
It depends on where ur I140 approval came from. What I mean by lag is they receive the application on 1st jun, they are working on assigning the lin # after 6 days. If they were at the same pace they should start working on the new I485 recived on Jun 1st today.
2011 A women#39;s group has issued a
aka
06-18 12:23 PM
I-140 already approved, I-485 details (same for both me and my wife):
Mailed to NSC on May 31st.
Received at NSC on June 1st (I think... never took tracking# from attorney).
Receipt Date - June 04
Notice date - June 07
Mailed to NSC on May 31st.
Received at NSC on June 1st (I think... never took tracking# from attorney).
Receipt Date - June 04
Notice date - June 07
more...
delax
07-27 01:48 PM
Under the latest interpretation, EB3-I India will not get benefit until EB3-ROW gets benefit. So EB3-ROW benefiting will eventually benefit Eb3-I. That is the logical background.
The other two issues , which provided temporary relief, would have been redundant If we had recaptured the visas. Most of us, across the EB category/Country, would have been current or near current , rendering these issues redundant.
IV still went ahead with it (I am glad) knowing fully well recapture is difficult issue.
So no harm in EB3-I seeking temporary relief while still joining forces on the recapture issue.
Now you need to explain How EB3-I seeking favorable interpretation of spill over distribution undermines "Recapture effort". How are these related??
Chmur; I appreciate your post. For the sake of a discussion could you share what is the temporary relief that you are seeking. I am curious to know the details. Is it
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
The other two issues , which provided temporary relief, would have been redundant If we had recaptured the visas. Most of us, across the EB category/Country, would have been current or near current , rendering these issues redundant.
IV still went ahead with it (I am glad) knowing fully well recapture is difficult issue.
So no harm in EB3-I seeking temporary relief while still joining forces on the recapture issue.
Now you need to explain How EB3-I seeking favorable interpretation of spill over distribution undermines "Recapture effort". How are these related??
Chmur; I appreciate your post. For the sake of a discussion could you share what is the temporary relief that you are seeking. I am curious to know the details. Is it
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
Azzkikr1337
09-27 02:56 PM
Lawyer filed I-485 on July 13th to TSC. Still nothing yet.
more...
vaishnavilakshmi
07-06 10:05 PM
Hi all,
Our papers were mailed on 29th june 2007 by overnight mail and reached USCIS(Nebraska) on 30th june 2007.
EB3,priority date
vaishu
Our papers were mailed on 29th june 2007 by overnight mail and reached USCIS(Nebraska) on 30th june 2007.
EB3,priority date
vaishu
2010 Kim#39;s Angels staan paraat
desi3933
07-08 04:43 PM
The legal reasoning is "Civil Rights Act of 1964" which applies to all individuals employed by a US employer in the US.
Wow! Amazing!
Please ask your attorney to quote this law when you file for H-1B extension, so that USCIS can not reject extension.
This law applies to US resident only. Temp worker (yes, on H1/L1 status, one is Temp Worker from legal point of view) can not claim protection citing this law. Reason: your employment is subject to USCIS regulations. It says right there on your SSN.
.
Wow! Amazing!
Please ask your attorney to quote this law when you file for H-1B extension, so that USCIS can not reject extension.
This law applies to US resident only. Temp worker (yes, on H1/L1 status, one is Temp Worker from legal point of view) can not claim protection citing this law. Reason: your employment is subject to USCIS regulations. It says right there on your SSN.
.
more...
gc4me
04-23 02:50 PM
This guy is a deshi employer. He is on H1 so he is a silent partner & that why scratching his head.
There are attorneys who will charge only after recovering money. The stupid employer can be sued for lost wages along with civil penalties from which the attorney's fee will be paid.
I just read first page of this thread and would advice that don't follow most of reply because they are lawyers or they have not gone through the experience you are going through. $4000 may not be big amount compared to hassle of law suite , piece of mind or the amount of increase you may have received by switching employer. I know a close person who had gone through exactly same situation in NJ and had to pay 12,000 to settle the case. I have seen bunch of people in same situation and my friend always adviced them to stay away from law suite. If your current employer is not big then there are greater chances that it will turn away from you in case of law suite.
If you are not working with same client that you were working when you were in company A then non-compete may not hold against you.
Also can you get in writing from you current employer that they will support you in case of law suite?
There are attorneys who will charge only after recovering money. The stupid employer can be sued for lost wages along with civil penalties from which the attorney's fee will be paid.
I just read first page of this thread and would advice that don't follow most of reply because they are lawyers or they have not gone through the experience you are going through. $4000 may not be big amount compared to hassle of law suite , piece of mind or the amount of increase you may have received by switching employer. I know a close person who had gone through exactly same situation in NJ and had to pay 12,000 to settle the case. I have seen bunch of people in same situation and my friend always adviced them to stay away from law suite. If your current employer is not big then there are greater chances that it will turn away from you in case of law suite.
If you are not working with same client that you were working when you were in company A then non-compete may not hold against you.
Also can you get in writing from you current employer that they will support you in case of law suite?
hair Girl in Pyongyang- North Korea
avi
12-18 03:48 PM
anyone from July2 filers here waiting for FP notice still?
Me! ... and two more guys from my office!
we are july first week filers! I haven't opened up an SR yet .. intend to do that soon right after the holidays!
We have received everything else though - EAD/AP/RECEIPT etc. for both me and my wife (same's the case with my colleagues)
Peace.
Me! ... and two more guys from my office!
we are july first week filers! I haven't opened up an SR yet .. intend to do that soon right after the holidays!
We have received everything else though - EAD/AP/RECEIPT etc. for both me and my wife (same's the case with my colleagues)
Peace.
more...
desi3933
06-28 06:46 AM
desi3933,
Here is the part of the law that says a job aspirant should not be discriminated by his/her immigration status as long as he/she has a valid work permit( H1B/GC/EAD/Citizenship).
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --
The only individual that can be discriminated against is an unauthorized alien. H1B/GC/EAD/Citizen does not fall in this category.
Thanks for your reply.
H-1B visa holder is not authorized alien to work for any employer. Employer can not be asked to provide H-1B sponsorship.
Infact H-1B worker has lot of restrictions related to his work. H1-B worker has to work only in his job location and pay range as specified in LCA. Any significant changes in job location, job duties, and/or salary requires LCA and H-1B petition amendment. H-1B worker is out of status when out of job for any reason. EAD holders, OPT are immigrants, who are not permanent resident, but they do not have such restrictions. And, thats why, they are authorized alien to work for any employer. (Hint: SSN card for H-1B holder has line - work with USCIS authorization only whereas GC/EAD holder does not have that line on their SSN card).
Authorized alien include EAD holders, GC holders, OPT, and US citizens. If you don't believe me, feel free to put this question in lawyer's forum and let me know what response you get.
Now, coming back to your quote
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --This simply means that Employer can not discriminate for hiring (or other aspects of hiring) any individual because of Immigration status (i.e. GC, EAD, OPT). For an employer, two applicants can not be discriminated because of their immigrant status, as long as they are authorized to work for the employer.
In fact, from legal pont of view, applicant requiring H-1B sponsorship can br refused without assigning any reason beyond employer can not sponsor H-1B visa at this time.
It is legal to advertise job that this job position is open for workers who have unrestricted work authorization. EAD is nonrestrictive work authorization in spite of its expiration date.
Walking dude's effort will at least highlight the fact that H1Bs are not preferred over GCs/Citizens. In fact it is the other way around. One of my colleague who recently got his GC, was surprised to see so many job offers opening up for him just because he was a GC holder.
Again, this is because, as GC holder and H-1B worker are not at par due to restrictions in work authorization. Employers can not be asked to apply for H-1B visa. Most employers would like to avoid hassle of visa sponsorship (additional paper work and legal requirements) and they prefer hiring H-1B worker as contractor through consulting company instead of employee.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Here is the part of the law that says a job aspirant should not be discriminated by his/her immigration status as long as he/she has a valid work permit( H1B/GC/EAD/Citizenship).
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --
The only individual that can be discriminated against is an unauthorized alien. H1B/GC/EAD/Citizen does not fall in this category.
Thanks for your reply.
H-1B visa holder is not authorized alien to work for any employer. Employer can not be asked to provide H-1B sponsorship.
Infact H-1B worker has lot of restrictions related to his work. H1-B worker has to work only in his job location and pay range as specified in LCA. Any significant changes in job location, job duties, and/or salary requires LCA and H-1B petition amendment. H-1B worker is out of status when out of job for any reason. EAD holders, OPT are immigrants, who are not permanent resident, but they do not have such restrictions. And, thats why, they are authorized alien to work for any employer. (Hint: SSN card for H-1B holder has line - work with USCIS authorization only whereas GC/EAD holder does not have that line on their SSN card).
Authorized alien include EAD holders, GC holders, OPT, and US citizens. If you don't believe me, feel free to put this question in lawyer's forum and let me know what response you get.
Now, coming back to your quote
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --This simply means that Employer can not discriminate for hiring (or other aspects of hiring) any individual because of Immigration status (i.e. GC, EAD, OPT). For an employer, two applicants can not be discriminated because of their immigrant status, as long as they are authorized to work for the employer.
In fact, from legal pont of view, applicant requiring H-1B sponsorship can br refused without assigning any reason beyond employer can not sponsor H-1B visa at this time.
It is legal to advertise job that this job position is open for workers who have unrestricted work authorization. EAD is nonrestrictive work authorization in spite of its expiration date.
Walking dude's effort will at least highlight the fact that H1Bs are not preferred over GCs/Citizens. In fact it is the other way around. One of my colleague who recently got his GC, was surprised to see so many job offers opening up for him just because he was a GC holder.
Again, this is because, as GC holder and H-1B worker are not at par due to restrictions in work authorization. Employers can not be asked to apply for H-1B visa. Most employers would like to avoid hassle of visa sponsorship (additional paper work and legal requirements) and they prefer hiring H-1B worker as contractor through consulting company instead of employee.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
hot 20100622-north-korea-football-
mike_2000_la
06-08 01:17 PM
yea...you are right...it seems they are not processing anything today..
Also i heard that on June 4 th approx 1100 485 apps was receipted. That makes it approx a total of 1800 for jun 1 and 4.
Also i heard that on June 4 th approx 1100 485 apps was receipted. That makes it approx a total of 1800 for jun 1 and 4.
more...
house Beautiful Women In Uniform
CADude
08-01 06:30 PM
Tricky question? Only USCIS can answer. May be part of FAQ3..;)
On July 25th lawyer sent my documents 140 & 485 concurrent, PD port from previous I-140 approval (approved at Nebraska).
Reached Nebraska Service Centre on July 26th.
Will it be processed at Nebraska Service centre or Texas Service centre? According to new direct filing instructions my employer and my residence comes under Texas Service centre.
On July 25th lawyer sent my documents 140 & 485 concurrent, PD port from previous I-140 approval (approved at Nebraska).
Reached Nebraska Service Centre on July 26th.
Will it be processed at Nebraska Service centre or Texas Service centre? According to new direct filing instructions my employer and my residence comes under Texas Service centre.
tattoo images image 8-322-25 Portrait
kumjay
06-26 03:01 PM
Desi 3933 ...get off his butt, didn't he say that he was wrong ! You are annoying.
So you were not referring to Employment Letter for GC job, rather Current Employment Letter while discussing how to file I-485.
GREAT!!! I hope you are not filing your I-485 application yourself.
What is the Current Employment Letter has to do with I-485?
Good Luck.
So you were not referring to Employment Letter for GC job, rather Current Employment Letter while discussing how to file I-485.
GREAT!!! I hope you are not filing your I-485 application yourself.
What is the Current Employment Letter has to do with I-485?
Good Luck.
more...
pictures Dating Russian Women
pcs
07-02 10:01 AM
They say, it will reach by noon tomorrow
dresses North Korean leader Kim Jong
hpandey
09-09 11:16 AM
It is depressing to see that nothing has changed much since the last post in this thread in 2007!
We are still in the same rut :mad: and not a single immigration news to read either :eek: let alone have any kind of active debate on the topic !!
You are wrong. There have been lot of changes. Two year EAD for one. And how about EB2 category moving to mid 2006 so most of the EB2 people before that have got GC or will surely get it next year. The only thing that hasn;'t changed is EB3 India. It was stuck in 2001 at that time and still is in 2001. It will crawl to 2002 in the coming year but that's that.
We are still in the same rut :mad: and not a single immigration news to read either :eek: let alone have any kind of active debate on the topic !!
You are wrong. There have been lot of changes. Two year EAD for one. And how about EB2 category moving to mid 2006 so most of the EB2 people before that have got GC or will surely get it next year. The only thing that hasn;'t changed is EB3 India. It was stuck in 2001 at that time and still is in 2001. It will crawl to 2002 in the coming year but that's that.
more...
makeup A woman walks by a North
chanduv23
06-26 10:06 AM
The way i understand this, not all companies are bound by the EOE laws.
Certain conditions have to be met to be considered an EOE.
Not every employer is an equal opp employer, so those guys can hire whoever they want.
Besides hiring folks on h1b, etc could add to costs for employers. So they choose not to employ such folks.
I am working on EAD after filing AC21. When I requested for EVL more than once because of NOID situation, my HR was not happy about it. She said she cannot keep giving letters all the time and she also expressed such concern to my manager. My manager in turn told me "This is why we do not get into this stuff, we were not aware of all this when we hired you and we have a policy to hire only Green card and USC" - all of it was oral. When I went into our HR website - it clearly states that hiring needs to have "i9" compliance and thats it.
One thing we have to understand - employer can decide to hire who they want but must not discriminate.
Basically if employers are not willing to sponser they must have ads as "Non restrictive work authorization" required and if the job needs security clearance they must say "nly security clearance"
Looks like most HRs or companies may not be following such pattern because they may not know. When my wife was applying for jobs - some reqruiters did not understand EAD and she explained and they said "We need to learn more about this"
Certain conditions have to be met to be considered an EOE.
Not every employer is an equal opp employer, so those guys can hire whoever they want.
Besides hiring folks on h1b, etc could add to costs for employers. So they choose not to employ such folks.
I am working on EAD after filing AC21. When I requested for EVL more than once because of NOID situation, my HR was not happy about it. She said she cannot keep giving letters all the time and she also expressed such concern to my manager. My manager in turn told me "This is why we do not get into this stuff, we were not aware of all this when we hired you and we have a policy to hire only Green card and USC" - all of it was oral. When I went into our HR website - it clearly states that hiring needs to have "i9" compliance and thats it.
One thing we have to understand - employer can decide to hire who they want but must not discriminate.
Basically if employers are not willing to sponser they must have ads as "Non restrictive work authorization" required and if the job needs security clearance they must say "nly security clearance"
Looks like most HRs or companies may not be following such pattern because they may not know. When my wife was applying for jobs - some reqruiters did not understand EAD and she explained and they said "We need to learn more about this"
girlfriend Tags: Korean women
SunnySurya
08-18 01:27 PM
Here is what I propose:
1. Any one with good english language skill : Can you please volunteer to draft a letter stating the issue....
2. Please contact your lawyers to see if they have contact in AILA.
3. Please contact you state chapter leader to discuss what can be done from IV stand point. I live in tri state and will contact. Murali or Chandrakanth
1. Any one with good english language skill : Can you please volunteer to draft a letter stating the issue....
2. Please contact your lawyers to see if they have contact in AILA.
3. Please contact you state chapter leader to discuss what can be done from IV stand point. I live in tri state and will contact. Murali or Chandrakanth
hairstyles Captive in North Korea
akhilmahajan
02-10 10:18 AM
Grand Total - $919
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
mnq1979
09-23 01:52 PM
Hi mnq1979,
The application was filed with CSC as all nos., which I have seen, are WAC nos. EAD was issued from CSC on (and I am guessing here) 18th, left from KY (40701) on 20th Sept (according to post mark) and reached my house on the 22nd Sept. If it was India and if the post man had delivered this to me, I would definitely have given him something for "mithaai" :D
It was only 3 days ago I had got the transfer notice from CSC saying that they had move our cases to TX.
I got the cards directly as my lawyer had not sent me the application no. yet. There were no notices for EADs.
More than me, my wife is happy that she wouldn't have to sit around feeling like a "dependent" ;).
GOD!!! to be honbest with u my situation is same like urs....like my wife is also too happy that we have received our receipts # for i485 and that we will soon get our ead hopefully....now she has started tellign me that she has jst # of days left of being dependent on me!!!! man it was fun to have 1 dependent as u can rule her...but now is smeeling freedom...anywaz....hope for the best.....thanx
The application was filed with CSC as all nos., which I have seen, are WAC nos. EAD was issued from CSC on (and I am guessing here) 18th, left from KY (40701) on 20th Sept (according to post mark) and reached my house on the 22nd Sept. If it was India and if the post man had delivered this to me, I would definitely have given him something for "mithaai" :D
It was only 3 days ago I had got the transfer notice from CSC saying that they had move our cases to TX.
I got the cards directly as my lawyer had not sent me the application no. yet. There were no notices for EADs.
More than me, my wife is happy that she wouldn't have to sit around feeling like a "dependent" ;).
GOD!!! to be honbest with u my situation is same like urs....like my wife is also too happy that we have received our receipts # for i485 and that we will soon get our ead hopefully....now she has started tellign me that she has jst # of days left of being dependent on me!!!! man it was fun to have 1 dependent as u can rule her...but now is smeeling freedom...anywaz....hope for the best.....thanx
mita
08-14 03:21 PM
As mentioned in my earlier post, address on my husband's I-485 was changed by USCIS system wrongly to attorney's address. We were wondering whether the documents went to old address or attorney and thank god our attorney has received it today and we will get it tomorrow. As for me and my son, still waiting...
No comments:
Post a Comment