Macaca
09-13 02:37 PM
I have been thinking about whether to attend the rally or not from past few weeks.
Attending the rally would require me to take a day off. Finally today without thinking twice I just went to my manager asked if I can take day off on 9/18 instead compensate the work in the following saturday. It was approved and I am attending the rally on 9/18!
I am feeling so good now.
While conscience is our friend,
all is at peace;
however once it is offended,
farewell to a tranquil mind
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu
Attending the rally would require me to take a day off. Finally today without thinking twice I just went to my manager asked if I can take day off on 9/18 instead compensate the work in the following saturday. It was approved and I am attending the rally on 9/18!
I am feeling so good now.
While conscience is our friend,
all is at peace;
however once it is offended,
farewell to a tranquil mind
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu
techdev
07-31 08:17 PM
Hi,
I am working with a consulting comp since 6 months. Now, I got a permenant offer from other comp and they have applied for transfer ( i have fedex receipt).
Now, I have a employment agreement with my company A which says I need to work with them for 12 months or need to pay 9500$. I can give 2 weeks of notice along with this. Contract is not on there letterhead but It has stamp with there address ( no company name on stamp). Contract says there name. Also signed is done by a marketing person of that comp.
Is that valid contract? Can they ask me to pay 9500$ or sue me on that basis?
Please reply me urgently as I need to decide what to do.
Thanks in advance
Parag
I am working with a consulting comp since 6 months. Now, I got a permenant offer from other comp and they have applied for transfer ( i have fedex receipt).
Now, I have a employment agreement with my company A which says I need to work with them for 12 months or need to pay 9500$. I can give 2 weeks of notice along with this. Contract is not on there letterhead but It has stamp with there address ( no company name on stamp). Contract says there name. Also signed is done by a marketing person of that comp.
Is that valid contract? Can they ask me to pay 9500$ or sue me on that basis?
Please reply me urgently as I need to decide what to do.
Thanks in advance
Parag
larun
05-29 08:05 AM
Contribution: $50.00
Receipt ID: 1076-0304-7610-2177
Go IV!!
Receipt ID: 1076-0304-7610-2177
Go IV!!
nag2007
04-16 06:04 PM
Fragomen has been great for me
First of all, they are arrogant and they dont understand the needs of the Client/Candidate. Most of the BIG FIRMS use Fragomen. LSI LOGIC, IBM (to name a few) used but eventually LSI LOGIC stopped services with FRAGOMEN.
Because of FRAGOMEN, I dont have EAD inspite of Earlier PD MAR 2005.
1. My Job requires BS + 5 yrs. They had to file in Eb2 but in March 2005, they told me lets file an EB3(since my 5th year was ending in couple of months) and once they are familiar they can file EB2.
2. When i asked them after an year to file in EB2, they told me that i cannot do because i am on 7th year extension. (all most all companies have done that).
3. After that in OCTOBER 2006, i asked to convert my eb3 from NON-RIR to RIR, they took almost 5 months and finally filed on the last day for RIR conversion and by that time BEC stopped processing RIR and started all NON-RIR cases and my labor was not cleared before AUG 17.
4. After that labor was cleared, they took 2 months to file my I-140. They received my papers and i had to literally bang at them to get my I-140 filed.
After all these, they give ask me to give a feedback. i screwed them up and informed my CEO and CFO about the Attitude of Fragomen.
First of all, they are arrogant and they dont understand the needs of the Client/Candidate. Most of the BIG FIRMS use Fragomen. LSI LOGIC, IBM (to name a few) used but eventually LSI LOGIC stopped services with FRAGOMEN.
Because of FRAGOMEN, I dont have EAD inspite of Earlier PD MAR 2005.
1. My Job requires BS + 5 yrs. They had to file in Eb2 but in March 2005, they told me lets file an EB3(since my 5th year was ending in couple of months) and once they are familiar they can file EB2.
2. When i asked them after an year to file in EB2, they told me that i cannot do because i am on 7th year extension. (all most all companies have done that).
3. After that in OCTOBER 2006, i asked to convert my eb3 from NON-RIR to RIR, they took almost 5 months and finally filed on the last day for RIR conversion and by that time BEC stopped processing RIR and started all NON-RIR cases and my labor was not cleared before AUG 17.
4. After that labor was cleared, they took 2 months to file my I-140. They received my papers and i had to literally bang at them to get my I-140 filed.
After all these, they give ask me to give a feedback. i screwed them up and informed my CEO and CFO about the Attitude of Fragomen.
more...
rklscp
05-21 08:14 PM
Really an interesting issue to talk about. I came to this site via google search. I am in the same boat. I am living in country for 14 years (F1 and now H1) with SSN. My wife never worked here; so she has H4. We have a daughter born here with SSN. We could not get this "stimulus rebate" because we filed "married filing jointly". I understand from IRS site that if you filed "married filing separately" you would get the benefit and you can later on amend your filing as "married filing jointly" (04/14/08). This may be beneficial if you "itemize" your deductions. You will still qualify for excemptions. But, if you do not itemize your deductions, your standard deduction will be halved if you file "married filing separately".
We filed married filing joingly and received our tax returns and no stimulus rebate. Can we re-file our tax return by filing separately this year (i.e. extension/amendment within 3 months?) Has anyone done this? Please let me know.
I would love to a part of any legal battle to raise our concern. Please keep us posted. I plan to check this site regularly. Also, please keep us updated with getting SSN for H4 visa holders.
We filed married filing joingly and received our tax returns and no stimulus rebate. Can we re-file our tax return by filing separately this year (i.e. extension/amendment within 3 months?) Has anyone done this? Please let me know.
I would love to a part of any legal battle to raise our concern. Please keep us posted. I plan to check this site regularly. Also, please keep us updated with getting SSN for H4 visa holders.
gc28262
03-21 04:57 PM
.................................................. ........................
Apologize for extending the topic....but one of the 'still open' question is what if the Second Employer H1B is 'NEW' and what if it is 'Transfer'.
Murthy document does not say about the Company B H1B is NEW or TRANSFERRED.
If New H1B and Transferred H1B are same....then problem is solved.
Many of you here said both are same. I assume so too. But, we haven't proved Gapala is wrong yet (no hard feelings gapala. it is not my intention to hurt you). if 'NEW and TRANSFERRED' are different, Murthy should have mentioned in her Document, but she did not do that. So, can we safely assume, that 'NEW and TRANSFERRED' are same.
Thank you everyone who responding to my post.
If you want to hear from Murthy, see the link I posted earlier
Here it is
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_immrum.html
Relevant part from the link
"
Each H1B Employer Must File a New H1B Petition
.................................................. ............................................... When an H1B employee wants to change employers in the United States, the prospective new employer must first file a new H1B petition. Although many people refer to this as an H1B "transfer," there is no separate transfer procedure under law. Each H1B is employer-specific and requires the filing of a new H1B petition and an approval from the USCIS to work for the new H1B employer.
.................................................. .................................................. ....
"
Apologize for extending the topic....but one of the 'still open' question is what if the Second Employer H1B is 'NEW' and what if it is 'Transfer'.
Murthy document does not say about the Company B H1B is NEW or TRANSFERRED.
If New H1B and Transferred H1B are same....then problem is solved.
Many of you here said both are same. I assume so too. But, we haven't proved Gapala is wrong yet (no hard feelings gapala. it is not my intention to hurt you). if 'NEW and TRANSFERRED' are different, Murthy should have mentioned in her Document, but she did not do that. So, can we safely assume, that 'NEW and TRANSFERRED' are same.
Thank you everyone who responding to my post.
If you want to hear from Murthy, see the link I posted earlier
Here it is
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_immrum.html
Relevant part from the link
"
Each H1B Employer Must File a New H1B Petition
.................................................. ............................................... When an H1B employee wants to change employers in the United States, the prospective new employer must first file a new H1B petition. Although many people refer to this as an H1B "transfer," there is no separate transfer procedure under law. Each H1B is employer-specific and requires the filing of a new H1B petition and an approval from the USCIS to work for the new H1B employer.
.................................................. .................................................. ....
"
more...
AllVNeedGcPc
05-20 06:07 PM
There is no mention of legal EB immigration :(
Response follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's immigration system. I appreciate the benefit of your views on this important issue.
Our current immigration system is broken, which is why I believe Congress should work to pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform should include policies to secure our nation's borders, curb future illegal immigration, establish an effective employer verification system and find a practical solution for the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S.
I do not believe that illegal immigrants should gain an unfair advantage from their actions. Any effort to earn legal status must include paying back taxes, a fine or penalty and taking steps to learn English. Reform should also not penalize those individuals who have followed the law and are here legally.
On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Arizona State Bill 1070, which grants broad powers to local law enforcement officials to determine and request proof of legal status of anyone suspected of violating federal immigration laws. The enactment of this new law is yet another sign that the federal government needs to act to fix our broken immigration system rather than allowing for a state-by-state patchwork of laws and ordinances. I also believe Arizona's law raises civil rights concerns, fails to recognize the economic contributions of legal immigrant workers, and harms our nation's ability to attract entrepreneurs from around the world who create jobs here in the United States.
Our nation faces many tough challenges. Immigration reform is a complicated and difficult issue but the current system is not working. We must put our differences aside to create a better system. Again, thank you for writing. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to contact me with your opinions and concerns.
Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
Response follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's immigration system. I appreciate the benefit of your views on this important issue.
Our current immigration system is broken, which is why I believe Congress should work to pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform should include policies to secure our nation's borders, curb future illegal immigration, establish an effective employer verification system and find a practical solution for the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S.
I do not believe that illegal immigrants should gain an unfair advantage from their actions. Any effort to earn legal status must include paying back taxes, a fine or penalty and taking steps to learn English. Reform should also not penalize those individuals who have followed the law and are here legally.
On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Arizona State Bill 1070, which grants broad powers to local law enforcement officials to determine and request proof of legal status of anyone suspected of violating federal immigration laws. The enactment of this new law is yet another sign that the federal government needs to act to fix our broken immigration system rather than allowing for a state-by-state patchwork of laws and ordinances. I also believe Arizona's law raises civil rights concerns, fails to recognize the economic contributions of legal immigrant workers, and harms our nation's ability to attract entrepreneurs from around the world who create jobs here in the United States.
Our nation faces many tough challenges. Immigration reform is a complicated and difficult issue but the current system is not working. We must put our differences aside to create a better system. Again, thank you for writing. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to contact me with your opinions and concerns.
Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
fuzzy logic
08-01 05:12 PM
Any one had experience with masudafunai.com?
more...
snathan
03-20 10:06 PM
Yes there is and it is called visa portability. :) this is for you as well piyu, do not jump into summary so fast.
Ok, Here's what law says about so called "transfer"
D. AC21 105 -- Visa portability
The AC21 105 provides that a nonimmigrant who was previously issued an H-lB visa or provided H-1B nonimmigrant status may begin working for a new H-lB employer as soon as that new employer files a "nonfrivolous" H-lB petition on the nonimmigrant's behalf, if:
(a) the nonimmigrant was lawfully admitted to the United States;
(b) the nonfrivolous petition for new employment was filed before the end of their period of authorized stay; and
(c) the nonimmigrant has not been employed without authorization since his lawful admission to the United States, and before the filing of the nonfrivolous petition.
The status of a dependent of a principal nonimmigrant that is working pursuant to portability benefits is derivative of and linked to the status of the principal nonimmigrant. Therefore, dependents will remain in H-4 status if the principal nonimmigrant is lawfully working pursuant to portability benefits.
Further it says,
The Service expects, therefore, to propose a rule that would afford H-lB beneficiaries, who are no longer working for the initial H-lB employer, some reasonable period of time such as 60 days after leaving the initial H-lB employer to begin working for a new H-lB petitioning employer under the portability provisions. It is important to note that such a proposed rule would not, of course, take effect until it has been published as a final rule, after notice and comment, and any revisions. This prospective statement of policy is provided solely for informational purposes to Service personnel and shall not be utilized as a standard of adjudication in cases involving portability issues, unless and until promulgation of a final rule implementing AC21 105 with such an interpretation. Service personnel will be notified of any changes in the processing of AC21 benefits that may occur upon the effective date of a final rule.
There are few other memo's on this I will try to post the links for reference
All I can say is you are confusing your self and others on this....I am not posting any more this thread.
Just call your attorney and verify the same
Good Luck.
Ok, Here's what law says about so called "transfer"
D. AC21 105 -- Visa portability
The AC21 105 provides that a nonimmigrant who was previously issued an H-lB visa or provided H-1B nonimmigrant status may begin working for a new H-lB employer as soon as that new employer files a "nonfrivolous" H-lB petition on the nonimmigrant's behalf, if:
(a) the nonimmigrant was lawfully admitted to the United States;
(b) the nonfrivolous petition for new employment was filed before the end of their period of authorized stay; and
(c) the nonimmigrant has not been employed without authorization since his lawful admission to the United States, and before the filing of the nonfrivolous petition.
The status of a dependent of a principal nonimmigrant that is working pursuant to portability benefits is derivative of and linked to the status of the principal nonimmigrant. Therefore, dependents will remain in H-4 status if the principal nonimmigrant is lawfully working pursuant to portability benefits.
Further it says,
The Service expects, therefore, to propose a rule that would afford H-lB beneficiaries, who are no longer working for the initial H-lB employer, some reasonable period of time such as 60 days after leaving the initial H-lB employer to begin working for a new H-lB petitioning employer under the portability provisions. It is important to note that such a proposed rule would not, of course, take effect until it has been published as a final rule, after notice and comment, and any revisions. This prospective statement of policy is provided solely for informational purposes to Service personnel and shall not be utilized as a standard of adjudication in cases involving portability issues, unless and until promulgation of a final rule implementing AC21 105 with such an interpretation. Service personnel will be notified of any changes in the processing of AC21 benefits that may occur upon the effective date of a final rule.
There are few other memo's on this I will try to post the links for reference
All I can say is you are confusing your self and others on this....I am not posting any more this thread.
Just call your attorney and verify the same
Good Luck.
gc_kaavaali
05-20 04:47 PM
It is good to be part of Immigration Voice efforts. I did my party. Donated $100 through paypal. Transaction ID is : 16B6932611262260B
more...
stucklabor
03-19 05:53 PM
PD, I don't agree with the phrasing of the new Labor Cert clause. That is not how I read Frist's bill. Did you make up the new labor cert clause yourself?
Will advanced degree holder need labor certification?
I think they will. Here is how the new labor certification clause will read:
So labor certification is required for advanced degree holder in STEM with 3 years of US experience prior to applying will be treated as special a case.
Also, this clause says that the degree has to be from a US university. I think Attorney Mathew Oh is wrong in saying that graduate degree holders in STEM from foreign universities can apply too.
Will advanced degree holder need labor certification?
I think they will. Here is how the new labor certification clause will read:
So labor certification is required for advanced degree holder in STEM with 3 years of US experience prior to applying will be treated as special a case.
Also, this clause says that the degree has to be from a US university. I think Attorney Mathew Oh is wrong in saying that graduate degree holders in STEM from foreign universities can apply too.
prem_goel
02-15 12:31 AM
I have six other guys who are in US for over 7 years who are also intrested in this admin(hopefully) fix . Please let us know what we can do? They just signed up@ immigrationvoice.org.
I am very interested as well. I find this highly ridiculous that people have to wait 6-7 years to get residency status in any country. It is high time that the laws of the land change.
Please advise on what can be done.
I am very interested as well. I find this highly ridiculous that people have to wait 6-7 years to get residency status in any country. It is high time that the laws of the land change.
Please advise on what can be done.
more...
a_yaja
06-26 07:46 AM
I think the country based quota has been eliminated for the "merit based" quota. Am I missing something.
The original bill had a 10% per country cap. Don't think that has been removed in the new bill.
The original bill had a 10% per country cap. Don't think that has been removed in the new bill.
DSJ
06-20 08:25 AM
as per http://www.shusterman.com/, democrats are up to restore family and employment immigration and eliminate point system
more...
GCard_Dream
12-04 03:18 PM
Or why not cover both aspects of H visa (H1 & H4). Both visas come with their own set of problems, challenges, and disappointments for the visa holders. Besides, H1 and H4 go hand in hand and story on one is not complete without mentioning the other. If I were the film maker, I would seriously consider both.
If you only talk about either one of these visas by themselves, you'll be looking at only the half of the picture.
have you considered making a film on H-1b workers and their frustrations in the gc porcess? that might be even more compelling than H-4 workers.
In a sense, H-1b holders are also dependent, on the employer, who is merciless compared with the the H-1 holder on whom the H-4 is dependent.
If you only talk about either one of these visas by themselves, you'll be looking at only the half of the picture.
have you considered making a film on H-1b workers and their frustrations in the gc porcess? that might be even more compelling than H-4 workers.
In a sense, H-1b holders are also dependent, on the employer, who is merciless compared with the the H-1 holder on whom the H-4 is dependent.
nogc_noproblem
10-05 11:04 AM
I am from Auburn Hills, Date: 10/20; Location: Troy Recreation Center; Time: 10.00 am; ok to me.
Count me in...
Count me in...
more...
ilikekilo
05-29 08:02 PM
here is the thing folks, until now I found no place where it details what exactly has happened. some people say they were racially discriminated, some say they didnt have transit visa...no one exactly says what has happened...
that being said, I flew airfrance, as far as I remember, once and I swear i had no problems..attendants were every polite. Ofcourse on the ground in Paris, when I walked in to a store or whatever , the girl in the store just didnt ack' me when I was asking in English, who cares, I left the store. Other than that, no problems folks... but i do understand everyone would have a different experience...
ps: I just cant believe that AF still replied to the comment/feedback to the OP's "stop racism you.....", wow! that was something..you gotta give credit atleast for that folks..
that being said, I flew airfrance, as far as I remember, once and I swear i had no problems..attendants were every polite. Ofcourse on the ground in Paris, when I walked in to a store or whatever , the girl in the store just didnt ack' me when I was asking in English, who cares, I left the store. Other than that, no problems folks... but i do understand everyone would have a different experience...
ps: I just cant believe that AF still replied to the comment/feedback to the OP's "stop racism you.....", wow! that was something..you gotta give credit atleast for that folks..
rabs
05-17 12:55 PM
Done. Thanks for such a simple tool.
zephyrr
07-23 09:35 PM
Ok, taking the emotion out of proposal, i agree fully with this post.
My application with PD 2003 was stuck in BECs for more than 2 yrs. There were cases being approved in a random fashion - unfortunately, we were not organized to put enough presssure to sort out the mess and ask the BECs to follow some sane procedure.
Now that we are at the 485 stage, I think it makes a lot of sense to first try and urge USCIS to follow a simple PD+RD procedure. If the PD of a case is earlier, than adjudicate it first. Plain and simple.
I'm also happy for the greater good and the fact that people who got their labors cleared as late as 2007 are able to file for 485. The 485 filing problem, namely, being able to when PD is not current is on IVs agenda anyway and a top priority. But for people to just jump the line is more of a selfish act than 'risker' starting this thread.
Btw, I don't see anything wrong with this thread, it is not a selfish agenda. We should work together to lobby and put pressure on USCIS to make this simple procedural change of using PD and not Receipt Date. It is fair and makes absolute sense.
I agree with what you say. Yes, backlogged victims need some justice at this moment, otherwise there it is morally not good for everyone.
1. Why don't we petition first before thinking of Lawsuit. We from IV should write a letter to USCIS stating the injustice brought to the backlogged victims and how it is mentally affecting them etc. We should ask USCIS to consider these things and come up with a solution for backlogged victims instead of threatening DOS and others with Lawsuit. Since we are at their mercy, there is nothing wrong in keeping them higher up and at the same time getting what we want.
2. If the petition did not work out, then we can think about some suit. Still I don't agree with any suit as it is not going to bring justice. By the time the suit clears, you will have your GC in hand.
My application with PD 2003 was stuck in BECs for more than 2 yrs. There were cases being approved in a random fashion - unfortunately, we were not organized to put enough presssure to sort out the mess and ask the BECs to follow some sane procedure.
Now that we are at the 485 stage, I think it makes a lot of sense to first try and urge USCIS to follow a simple PD+RD procedure. If the PD of a case is earlier, than adjudicate it first. Plain and simple.
I'm also happy for the greater good and the fact that people who got their labors cleared as late as 2007 are able to file for 485. The 485 filing problem, namely, being able to when PD is not current is on IVs agenda anyway and a top priority. But for people to just jump the line is more of a selfish act than 'risker' starting this thread.
Btw, I don't see anything wrong with this thread, it is not a selfish agenda. We should work together to lobby and put pressure on USCIS to make this simple procedural change of using PD and not Receipt Date. It is fair and makes absolute sense.
I agree with what you say. Yes, backlogged victims need some justice at this moment, otherwise there it is morally not good for everyone.
1. Why don't we petition first before thinking of Lawsuit. We from IV should write a letter to USCIS stating the injustice brought to the backlogged victims and how it is mentally affecting them etc. We should ask USCIS to consider these things and come up with a solution for backlogged victims instead of threatening DOS and others with Lawsuit. Since we are at their mercy, there is nothing wrong in keeping them higher up and at the same time getting what we want.
2. If the petition did not work out, then we can think about some suit. Still I don't agree with any suit as it is not going to bring justice. By the time the suit clears, you will have your GC in hand.
apb
12-10 01:52 PM
Logiclife,
IV is a voluntary organisation. You can request people to volunteer, but cannot force them or scold them for not volunteering. This is not professional. They might have their reasons and the right to work their way. I agree with your frustration when people who signed to turn up do not show up. But I feel this is not the way to express it.
Ram
It is not acceptable
For people to say they are coming and do not show up. I understand exceptions can happen, But least they could call-up and let the organizer know. I remember the same in recent Diwali Mela. Some who were supposed to come are still on the way.
This event was not to display the strength by show of hands. These members were expected to be delegated with some action items and follow up items. Either you volunteer or you don't. But volunteering and not showing up indeed speaks volume of the lousy character. Maybe this unprofessional behavior is commented upon strongly, but is it worth anything to sugar coat this behavior. Why can't we call a spade a spade? Just because it hurts? If we start accepting this attitude it only reflects a weakness on our side.
I see no reason why these peoples handle should not be made aware to other members at least at the state chapter level. Now they would know who they could count on. If I am a part of this team I should know who are in my team, who are accountable and who are not.
IV is a voluntary organisation. You can request people to volunteer, but cannot force them or scold them for not volunteering. This is not professional. They might have their reasons and the right to work their way. I agree with your frustration when people who signed to turn up do not show up. But I feel this is not the way to express it.
Ram
It is not acceptable
For people to say they are coming and do not show up. I understand exceptions can happen, But least they could call-up and let the organizer know. I remember the same in recent Diwali Mela. Some who were supposed to come are still on the way.
This event was not to display the strength by show of hands. These members were expected to be delegated with some action items and follow up items. Either you volunteer or you don't. But volunteering and not showing up indeed speaks volume of the lousy character. Maybe this unprofessional behavior is commented upon strongly, but is it worth anything to sugar coat this behavior. Why can't we call a spade a spade? Just because it hurts? If we start accepting this attitude it only reflects a weakness on our side.
I see no reason why these peoples handle should not be made aware to other members at least at the state chapter level. Now they would know who they could count on. If I am a part of this team I should know who are in my team, who are accountable and who are not.
mundada
07-20 10:52 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No comments:
Post a Comment