andy garcia
09-19 06:35 PM
How come a bill which talks about " ....authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense......" can link an amendment which talks about different thing i.e. "..Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas..."
This is how(pay attention to the bold text):
SA 2143. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
This is how(pay attention to the bold text):
SA 2143. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
FredG
April 17th, 2004, 08:15 PM
Sounds like a soap opera to me. :rolleyes:
Fred
Fred
smit
02-27 09:20 PM
Can anyone tell me what was final outcome of this? and which state it was where this happened?
aachoo
02-20 06:54 PM
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
-a
more...
walking_dude
11-25 11:43 PM
Let us not turn it into EB immigrants vs. undocumented fight. They are human beings too, with a dream for better tomorrow just like us.
As long as CIR includes fixes for EB immigration there is no reason to oppose Legalization or the CIR. We the last CIR was opposed by our community not because it had Amnesty, but because it was really bad for EB immigrants due to the short-sightedness or some hard-leftist politicians. If CIR 2007 had pro-EB measures included our community would have supported it CIR or not.
On a personal level, I support legalization as I am opposed to the formation of another underclass. Just like I feel it morally repulsive that Indians, Chinese, legal Mexicans and Phillipinos being denied voting rights for years based on the country of birth, it's equally repulsive that 12 million people will live in this country with no voting rights. (make no istake, most of them aren't going anywhere). It's a mockery of the reason that America broke away from the British Empire - 'No taxation without representation'. (Studies have shown many undocumented immigrants in good paying jobs pay taxes using fake or someone-else's SSN. These taxes add up to millions of dollars every year)
CIR must be defeated. It has no benefits for legal immigrants but only for illegal immigrants. Worksite enforcement must be increased to make it impossible for illegal immigrants to make a living in the USA. If not, USA will become like Mexico and USA will lose it's magnet for attracting the world's best!
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
As long as CIR includes fixes for EB immigration there is no reason to oppose Legalization or the CIR. We the last CIR was opposed by our community not because it had Amnesty, but because it was really bad for EB immigrants due to the short-sightedness or some hard-leftist politicians. If CIR 2007 had pro-EB measures included our community would have supported it CIR or not.
On a personal level, I support legalization as I am opposed to the formation of another underclass. Just like I feel it morally repulsive that Indians, Chinese, legal Mexicans and Phillipinos being denied voting rights for years based on the country of birth, it's equally repulsive that 12 million people will live in this country with no voting rights. (make no istake, most of them aren't going anywhere). It's a mockery of the reason that America broke away from the British Empire - 'No taxation without representation'. (Studies have shown many undocumented immigrants in good paying jobs pay taxes using fake or someone-else's SSN. These taxes add up to millions of dollars every year)
CIR must be defeated. It has no benefits for legal immigrants but only for illegal immigrants. Worksite enforcement must be increased to make it impossible for illegal immigrants to make a living in the USA. If not, USA will become like Mexico and USA will lose it's magnet for attracting the world's best!
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
peer123
04-04 04:54 AM
,,,,, others please weigh in
more...
21stIcon
12-21 06:33 AM
What I am saying his employer process pay roll for $5800, he gets in hand after tax deduction.
You guys should understand one thing if your base salary is $1000/k, company should process $8333/pm on a pay roll then pay roll will decide about tax withholdings. There is no way company can show gimmicks and run pay roll for less. I have been working for the past 8 years, all the time companies divided annual salary by biweekly and deposited rest will be taken care by pay roll processing.
Bottom line pay slip should show 8333 not even single penny less for 100k it means you are employer is cheating you.
You guys should understand one thing if your base salary is $1000/k, company should process $8333/pm on a pay roll then pay roll will decide about tax withholdings. There is no way company can show gimmicks and run pay roll for less. I have been working for the past 8 years, all the time companies divided annual salary by biweekly and deposited rest will be taken care by pay roll processing.
Bottom line pay slip should show 8333 not even single penny less for 100k it means you are employer is cheating you.
b072707
10-24 11:47 AM
I am in the same boat. no receipts so far.
more...
mheggade
07-30 11:24 AM
Don't put "difficult" and "spouse" next to each other. WHY? Its because two different words means the same????
Very funny.
Very funny.
sheela
07-11 06:08 PM
I am in the same boat. I spoke to my Attorney and she says, it is not an issue. They will ask for finger prints when they start looking at your case.
FP is a definite requirement before AOS is adjudicated. No fp will delay decision. Remember 'low-hanging-fruits' once visa numbers are available
FP is a definite requirement before AOS is adjudicated. No fp will delay decision. Remember 'low-hanging-fruits' once visa numbers are available
more...
GCBy3000
03-31 10:13 AM
You can take any number of salary hike but not different job duties than specified in the labor. No need to inform the labaor department. Because as per law you cannot have different job duties until you get your gc and max one year beyond that.
I am also stuck in the same boat. Infact, I got promoted with 16k hike and demoted in two months. My attorney got a apology letter signed by my VP for attorney records. It is that serious to change job duties.
I am also stuck in the same boat. Infact, I got promoted with 16k hike and demoted in two months. My attorney got a apology letter signed by my VP for attorney records. It is that serious to change job duties.
ronhira
08-20 02:11 PM
How about an apology from an Indian Prime Minister saying he is sorry that you were born in India and are not able to get greencard.
Why should USCIS apologize to you? Did USCIS force you to apply for Greencard?
I agree with rajuram. We are all tax payers. The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation. People who get paid from my tax dollars are answerable to me as much as they are to anyone else. Even when cis is not forcing me to file gc, its still equally answerable to me for my tax dollars to tell me why they are not doing their jobs properly. And for that cis owes us all apology. What's wrong with that?
Why should USCIS apologize to you? Did USCIS force you to apply for Greencard?
I agree with rajuram. We are all tax payers. The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation. People who get paid from my tax dollars are answerable to me as much as they are to anyone else. Even when cis is not forcing me to file gc, its still equally answerable to me for my tax dollars to tell me why they are not doing their jobs properly. And for that cis owes us all apology. What's wrong with that?
more...
transpass
07-16 11:42 AM
Can any one tell what is written on Eb3 I 140. I am assuming it will be
Sec 203 (b) (3)
but is there any text associated?
This is my understanding, when I look the 140 form...
You can either look into 'Part2 (Petition Type)' what is applied for when you file, OR you can look 'Classification' under "FOR CIS USE ONLY', where the CIS officer will approve what you checked in 'Petition Type'...
EB1--
203(b) (1) (A) Alien of Extraordinary ability
203 (b) (1) (B) Outstanding professor or researcher
EB2---
203(b) (2) Member of professions w/adv degree or exceptional ability
EB3--
203 (b) (3) (A) (i) Skilled worker
203 (b) (3) (A) (ii) Professional
Just My 2 Cents...
Sec 203 (b) (3)
but is there any text associated?
This is my understanding, when I look the 140 form...
You can either look into 'Part2 (Petition Type)' what is applied for when you file, OR you can look 'Classification' under "FOR CIS USE ONLY', where the CIS officer will approve what you checked in 'Petition Type'...
EB1--
203(b) (1) (A) Alien of Extraordinary ability
203 (b) (1) (B) Outstanding professor or researcher
EB2---
203(b) (2) Member of professions w/adv degree or exceptional ability
EB3--
203 (b) (3) (A) (i) Skilled worker
203 (b) (3) (A) (ii) Professional
Just My 2 Cents...
Be_Pragmatic
07-23 05:35 PM
It varies from state to state based upon which money pool is used to pay the beneficiaries, but it is wise to not to go for it. You will show up as social burden at the time of adjudication and may affect the IOs descision while granting you the AOS approval or not.
Its my 2 cents. You may wanna talk to your attorney before even thinking about filing for such benefits.
OK, thanks much for your suggestion. I'll consult my attorney before plunging in.
Its my 2 cents. You may wanna talk to your attorney before even thinking about filing for such benefits.
OK, thanks much for your suggestion. I'll consult my attorney before plunging in.
more...
immi2006
05-04 10:00 AM
Based on Perm Trackers in immigration.com, the rate of approvals for EB2 based on the excel sheets seems like this :
2005 - EB2 approval less than 30 % of the filing, 39 % is pending for a looooog time, rest are rejects
2006 - EB2 so far - 41 % of the filing is approved,
2005 EB3 Approval rate 44 %
BEC to Conversion to PERM Processs - Rejection rate 78 %
2005 - EB2 approval less than 30 % of the filing, 39 % is pending for a looooog time, rest are rejects
2006 - EB2 so far - 41 % of the filing is approved,
2005 EB3 Approval rate 44 %
BEC to Conversion to PERM Processs - Rejection rate 78 %
cjain
08-10 04:36 PM
...if you want...i'll post here..
Great find..
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
Great find..
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
more...
RLNY122004
06-15 04:25 PM
I won't .
Congrats RLNY122004! Dont forget IV!
Congrats RLNY122004! Dont forget IV!
Legal
09-20 07:22 PM
K_SING,
You can invest, but be careful.
You can invest and earn money, but you shoulddn't be "working" to generate money. If you "work" at stock trading, and generate money this is a violation of your H1B status. You could land in trouble, if I were you I will stop it.
Attorney Siskind addressed this issue recently (visalaw.com), i don't have the web link.
You can do passive investing in mutual funds or stocks. you can invest in real estate funds, but if you actively manage a property and make money you could be in trouble.;)
You can invest, but be careful.
You can invest and earn money, but you shoulddn't be "working" to generate money. If you "work" at stock trading, and generate money this is a violation of your H1B status. You could land in trouble, if I were you I will stop it.
Attorney Siskind addressed this issue recently (visalaw.com), i don't have the web link.
You can do passive investing in mutual funds or stocks. you can invest in real estate funds, but if you actively manage a property and make money you could be in trouble.;)
gc_in_30_yrs
09-12 08:15 PM
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
Thanks for pointing out the isse I had. I meant to say; only that in between projects; it is okay to take vacation, but I was rude in explaining which caught everybody's attention. My thoughts were As You Explained.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
Thanks for pointing out the isse I had. I meant to say; only that in between projects; it is okay to take vacation, but I was rude in explaining which caught everybody's attention. My thoughts were As You Explained.
GCfast
09-08 12:44 PM
Tried it. works quite well..thanks
emmNemm
07-16 08:57 AM
I agree. I am EB2 and my Prevailing_Wage_Level is Level II
No comments:
Post a Comment