belmontboy
03-21 04:48 PM
There is no requirement for any company to sponsor green cards for any employee. A job is granted to you based on requirement of the company. Once that requirement no longer exists, the company can (and should) lay off the employee. This applies to H1 extensions and filing of GC.
GC filing is completely based on the company needing your service. Unless you totally excel and become indispensible to the company, they do not need to keep you. This is unlike a secure Govt. job in most 3rd world countries.
The conclusion is that this list would include ALL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (and some Govts jobs). However, the list is not of rogue companies but simply companies that are run well.
Speaking generally, companies have no requirement to provide other benefits like health insurance, 401k, options...etc. But why do most companies offer these? - They do so to attract top talent. That's how a company distinguishes itself from its competitors.
Applying for GC has become one of the incentives.
A company offering GC incentive during hiring, but withholding it, would amount to unethical practice. And is certainly bound to lose its top talents (specifically immigrant ones)
GC filing is completely based on the company needing your service. Unless you totally excel and become indispensible to the company, they do not need to keep you. This is unlike a secure Govt. job in most 3rd world countries.
The conclusion is that this list would include ALL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (and some Govts jobs). However, the list is not of rogue companies but simply companies that are run well.
Speaking generally, companies have no requirement to provide other benefits like health insurance, 401k, options...etc. But why do most companies offer these? - They do so to attract top talent. That's how a company distinguishes itself from its competitors.
Applying for GC has become one of the incentives.
A company offering GC incentive during hiring, but withholding it, would amount to unethical practice. And is certainly bound to lose its top talents (specifically immigrant ones)
wallpaper +green+lantern+symbol
perm2gc
02-01 02:50 AM
please add sulekha.com
forget sulekha..i posted our ad couple of times ,after that they started to delete.I am not sure what the reason is...
All i need is the forums which have more members with more activity.I will spend sometime to join them and post.
forget sulekha..i posted our ad couple of times ,after that they started to delete.I am not sure what the reason is...
All i need is the forums which have more members with more activity.I will spend sometime to join them and post.
Macaca
09-11 01:38 PM
It's good to have money and the
things money can buy,
but it's good, too,
to check up
once in a while and
make sure that
you haven't lost
the things money can't buy
George Horace Lorimer
things money can buy,
but it's good, too,
to check up
once in a while and
make sure that
you haven't lost
the things money can't buy
George Horace Lorimer
2011 green lantern wallpaper. Green Lantern LIVE WALLPAPER
slowwin
07-23 07:56 AM
now that the Small Business lending program has passed the 60 vote threshold, they would be putting Amndt. to it for vote. any idea, when sanders Amndt. will be vote on ?:mad:
more...
justAnotherFile
07-15 08:44 PM
I got one FP done after filing I-485 and another when I first applied for EAD (18 motnhs back)
My spouse got only one FP request after I-485 and none during EAD renewals.
I wonders if we use AP to enter, do the fingerprints taken at the port of entry automatically get registered with our I-485 application. Because when we enter on AP there is a additional stepo at the port of entry where dat ais entered into some system.
My spouse got only one FP request after I-485 and none during EAD renewals.
I wonders if we use AP to enter, do the fingerprints taken at the port of entry automatically get registered with our I-485 application. Because when we enter on AP there is a additional stepo at the port of entry where dat ais entered into some system.
anand2007
07-03 03:34 PM
DOS says USCIS suddenly did backlog case reduction. Why USCIS didn't communicate to DOS regarding this action before or immeditely after july Visa bulletin was issued. Suprisingly when DOS issued revision USCIS immediately acted on it and started rejecting applications based on DOS revision.Also how can backlog reduction be unexpected action when they are clearing backlog cases for a month.
It is clear to me USCIS and/or DOS is playing with the legal immigrants, even if this is a genuine situation, this is reckless behaviour from USCIS/DOS. It's time to teach a lesson to the USCIS regarding this. In the worst case, if we can't correct the situation at this time, we should atleast teach them that they can't do this in future.They wasted my money and time and caused mental tension. I just contributed $100 to fight. If we don't fight for ourselves who will???.
It is clear to me USCIS and/or DOS is playing with the legal immigrants, even if this is a genuine situation, this is reckless behaviour from USCIS/DOS. It's time to teach a lesson to the USCIS regarding this. In the worst case, if we can't correct the situation at this time, we should atleast teach them that they can't do this in future.They wasted my money and time and caused mental tension. I just contributed $100 to fight. If we don't fight for ourselves who will???.
more...
angelina
09-26 12:44 PM
This is nicely being played by big lawyers. They used us for demostration and converted the propaganda to media as it is for H1B . Profitablity is more on new H1B
Yes they can subtly change things and then say that it was just a mistake.
Dirty politics
Yes they can subtly change things and then say that it was just a mistake.
Dirty politics
2010 Green Lantern: Green Lantern
Administrator2
06-11 01:35 PM
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
more...
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
hair Green+lantern+logo+vector
ita
01-30 10:03 PM
How does one know what is the amount mentioned on H1 LCA? Do we have to ask the employer about it?
Now how do you show that you were in status since last entry to 485 filing date? Do we have to produce monthly pay stubs or will the W2 be sufficient?
Will appreciate your response.
Thank you.
Example[/U]
Mr Chanakya Pandit (fictitious name) has filed for eb-3 India in July 2007 for I-485. He has PD of Sep 2005 (not current).
Mr Pandit entered last on H1 visa on Jan 21st 2006 and he is working for ABC company. As per H1 LCA, his salary is 65k and he is getting paid 62k.
He entered on USA using AP in Oct 2008. He is using EAD to work.
Since he was getting paid less athn H1 salary, he is out of status since Jan 21st 2006 and he has accumulating out of status days until date of I-485 filing. If this out of status > 180 days, his I-485 can be denied just on this basis alone.
If person is out of status for more than 180 days at thetime of filing for I-485, he can denied entry even on AP. Read your AP document, it mentions warning about of out of status right there.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Now how do you show that you were in status since last entry to 485 filing date? Do we have to produce monthly pay stubs or will the W2 be sufficient?
Will appreciate your response.
Thank you.
Example[/U]
Mr Chanakya Pandit (fictitious name) has filed for eb-3 India in July 2007 for I-485. He has PD of Sep 2005 (not current).
Mr Pandit entered last on H1 visa on Jan 21st 2006 and he is working for ABC company. As per H1 LCA, his salary is 65k and he is getting paid 62k.
He entered on USA using AP in Oct 2008. He is using EAD to work.
Since he was getting paid less athn H1 salary, he is out of status since Jan 21st 2006 and he has accumulating out of status days until date of I-485 filing. If this out of status > 180 days, his I-485 can be denied just on this basis alone.
If person is out of status for more than 180 days at thetime of filing for I-485, he can denied entry even on AP. Read your AP document, it mentions warning about of out of status right there.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
more...
madsat1234
03-17 10:24 AM
I140 Approved 2006
June 2007 filing 485
Got EAD & AP and FP Done
June 2007 filing 485
Got EAD & AP and FP Done
hot Green+lantern+logo+vector
Positive
11-11 08:25 AM
At the minimum legal action will force someone to look into what is going on here. I don't think that AILA is going to partner with us in this initiative.
more...
house green lantern logo tattoo,
HV000
02-14 12:47 PM
The spirit of US is to united everyone from different countries and races to live together to be loyal to the same country. But truly they don't want too many immigrants from one or two specific country. That is why they setup the country limit rules. So the population for all the immigrants from differnet places grows up about equally in this country. I think this is normal to every country. I believe every country will do the same if they are facing a lot immigrants. If the other day many immigrants from other countries want to go India, Indian gov. will do the same.
Just to be curious, where is the fight the OP mentioned. Can OP link us or is it just OP think there is a fight?
I agree with your point that US wants to bring people from over the world and not just few countries. The removal of Country quota WILL NEVER happen. May be they will atleast slightly increase the quota for oversubscribed countries.
Just to be curious, where is the fight the OP mentioned. Can OP link us or is it just OP think there is a fight?
I agree with your point that US wants to bring people from over the world and not just few countries. The removal of Country quota WILL NEVER happen. May be they will atleast slightly increase the quota for oversubscribed countries.
tattoo green lantern wallpaper. Green Lantern (Movie); Green Lantern (Movie)
mmanurker
10-16 02:03 PM
Count me in EB3 - India PD: 12/2003
140: RD: March'23 2007 and pending......@ NSC
485/EAD/AP(for spouse and myself): RD: Aug'10th 2007 and ND: Oct4th 2007, case pending......@TSC
IV Contribution: $300
140: RD: March'23 2007 and pending......@ NSC
485/EAD/AP(for spouse and myself): RD: Aug'10th 2007 and ND: Oct4th 2007, case pending......@TSC
IV Contribution: $300
more...
pictures calf Green+lantern+symbol+
nirenjoshi
01-18 10:09 AM
In addition, only 2 out of the 100 pages have any useful content. Most of the posts are attitude problems.
Just signed up for $20/month..
Subscription#S-8CN546654G0240130
Just signed up for $20/month..
Subscription#S-8CN546654G0240130
dresses Jul , images, green lantern
jambapamba
07-13 07:56 AM
Yes, please correct the spelling....
Please correct your spelling of Murthy. I thought some senator or Congressman Murphy wrote to DOS. If it was murthy I wouldn't have bothered to come on this thread. She is a big time crook. Shamelessly she's trying to take credit of everything that we are doing here under 1 banner called immigrationvoice she will take credit of Zoe Lofgren and everybody else. She has never ever mentioned immigrationvoice for anything in her so called updates.
Please correct your spelling of Murthy. I thought some senator or Congressman Murphy wrote to DOS. If it was murthy I wouldn't have bothered to come on this thread. She is a big time crook. Shamelessly she's trying to take credit of everything that we are doing here under 1 banner called immigrationvoice she will take credit of Zoe Lofgren and everybody else. She has never ever mentioned immigrationvoice for anything in her so called updates.
more...
makeup +green+lantern+symbol
aviv
07-24 06:47 AM
I Don't think Sanjay's checks got cashed! Please see his posts
girlfriend My Green Lantern Symbol Render
cool_guy_onnet1
02-20 03:29 PM
Dude. I am *so* not Ron Gotcher. :)
He was rushing and didn't give me any specifics for EB-3 India.
Just don't exhaust this resource and keep it down low.
Lets wait and watch- Go IV
He was rushing and didn't give me any specifics for EB-3 India.
Just don't exhaust this resource and keep it down low.
Lets wait and watch- Go IV
hairstyles Green Lantern Logo
lahiribaba
02-03 12:28 PM
Mirage - I totally support you man. You got to do what your heart feels like ... If you get too tired of waiting and living this CHAINNNNED life and you want to meet Mr President to let him know how you feel - man by all means you got to do it.. Remember the flutter of a butterfly wings in Jailsalmer starts a tornado in florida... there are numerous occassions when one single man's stand changed the entire nation .. I totally support you . If the good old USA is still a FREE COUNTRY then there is no reason why you should not go ahead...
As for getting support from others it is nice to have support but it does not mean that if they do not support you , you are wrong. What you are saying is RIGHTFULLY JUSTIFIED and every man and woman in this country has the RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. After all that is the reason why we want our GC here. There are many people in this forum who are just FOB's and there are many who have just given up after years of waiting .. but people like you can keep the flame alive. Salute and good luck my friend.
As for getting support from others it is nice to have support but it does not mean that if they do not support you , you are wrong. What you are saying is RIGHTFULLY JUSTIFIED and every man and woman in this country has the RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. After all that is the reason why we want our GC here. There are many people in this forum who are just FOB's and there are many who have just given up after years of waiting .. but people like you can keep the flame alive. Salute and good luck my friend.
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
dixie
08-03 01:25 PM
if there is diff emails with diff content it will be better. it will show diversity. even though we all will say the same thing.
on second thoughts i feel lou dobbs is unlikely to change his opinion even if 1K people send him mails. send it anyways to all other cnn anchors so that IV can get some coverage on cnn.
I feel sending anything to Lou Dobbs will only be counter-productive. We dont know for sure where he stands on EB visas, but the H1-B increase component in the SKIL bill is gauranteed to make him growl like a rabid dog. He is sure to paint it as an american-worker replacement bill.No coverage is better than coverage for numbersusa's point of view.
on second thoughts i feel lou dobbs is unlikely to change his opinion even if 1K people send him mails. send it anyways to all other cnn anchors so that IV can get some coverage on cnn.
I feel sending anything to Lou Dobbs will only be counter-productive. We dont know for sure where he stands on EB visas, but the H1-B increase component in the SKIL bill is gauranteed to make him growl like a rabid dog. He is sure to paint it as an american-worker replacement bill.No coverage is better than coverage for numbersusa's point of view.