Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
wallpaper rachel weisz hair mummy.
gbof
08-15 09:13 PM
I think this is a very good post.
To add to this:
This incident has nothing to do with India. It just happened that SRK was from India.
After 9/11 we all know security measures are tight and rightly so.
For them it does not matter if it is
1. SR Khan who works in movies or
2. XYZ Khan who is a computer programmer or a cab driver.
If the name flashes in the computers they do the required checks.
Do you feel people with Muslim sounding names are targeted more?
No wonder, it is likely. DO NOT Blame USA TSA for that. Blame Osama Bin Laden for putting innocent Muslims through this.
Add to this:
Not even a single incident happened on american soil after 9/11 and credit for this goes to EFFECTIVE security system in place and this will stay in place because no body will interefere on this
America is still fighting 2- wars (yes, Iraq and Afganistan mess is not over yet) BUT its citizen are still having very normal life - credit goes to home land security
To add to this:
This incident has nothing to do with India. It just happened that SRK was from India.
After 9/11 we all know security measures are tight and rightly so.
For them it does not matter if it is
1. SR Khan who works in movies or
2. XYZ Khan who is a computer programmer or a cab driver.
If the name flashes in the computers they do the required checks.
Do you feel people with Muslim sounding names are targeted more?
No wonder, it is likely. DO NOT Blame USA TSA for that. Blame Osama Bin Laden for putting innocent Muslims through this.
Add to this:
Not even a single incident happened on american soil after 9/11 and credit for this goes to EFFECTIVE security system in place and this will stay in place because no body will interefere on this
America is still fighting 2- wars (yes, Iraq and Afganistan mess is not over yet) BUT its citizen are still having very normal life - credit goes to home land security
vdlrao
07-24 09:01 PM
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456&page=8
#78 07-07 12:43 PM
guchi472000 guchi472000 is offline
Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13
Re: Visa Bulletin answers and other isssues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ron.
Any predictions for Aug-08 visa bulletine.
Thanks.
guchi472000
View Public Profile
Find all posts by guchi472000
#79 07-07 01:30 PM
Re: Visa Bulletin answers and other isssues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect there won't be much change from the July bulletin.
__________________
Ron Gotcher Ron Gotcher is offline
Attorney at Law Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 6,767
Blog Entries: 11
07-07 01:30 PM
Ron Gotcher Ron Gotcher is offline
Attorney at Law Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 6,767
Blog Entries: 11
Re: Visa Bulletin answers and other isssues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect there won't be much change from the July bulletin
As our "Legal" mentioned please see Ron's commets on the Aug 2008 Bulletin, before its released.
#78 07-07 12:43 PM
guchi472000 guchi472000 is offline
Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13
Re: Visa Bulletin answers and other isssues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ron.
Any predictions for Aug-08 visa bulletine.
Thanks.
guchi472000
View Public Profile
Find all posts by guchi472000
#79 07-07 01:30 PM
Re: Visa Bulletin answers and other isssues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect there won't be much change from the July bulletin.
__________________
Ron Gotcher Ron Gotcher is offline
Attorney at Law Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 6,767
Blog Entries: 11
07-07 01:30 PM
Ron Gotcher Ron Gotcher is offline
Attorney at Law Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 6,767
Blog Entries: 11
Re: Visa Bulletin answers and other isssues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect there won't be much change from the July bulletin
As our "Legal" mentioned please see Ron's commets on the Aug 2008 Bulletin, before its released.
2011 0608-rachel-weisz-hair-updo_bd
imcdude
11-11 10:54 AM
While Pre-approved labor is ok, the priority date of the original applicant should NOT transfer over to the beneficiary of the substituted labor. The injustice is there.
more...
dealsnet
05-18 01:42 PM
It is not good to put fake identity in any forums. The guy (MARPHAD) pointed out have a good civic sense. Here admins are not paid. They have jobs, and not always watching people. This site is for every one. So the members have an obligation to find out the fake, anti immigrants. He may not be anti immigrant, but he have fake identity. So if you not correct, and going in wrong path, some one may point out to you. Do not expect you need or only obey a Police to get a direction. Grow up guys.
How has panini's profile in THIS THREAD got anything to do with immigration? this is NOT an immigration related thread. If you should police a person's profile in an immigration related thread no one would object, but this is the wrong thread. And isn't the default changeability the US ? Your accusations are pretty strong and doesn't seem to have any backing; what are the rumors that he has been spreading ? anti immigrant ???
If you should police this site, then ask the Admin's to close non immigration related threads that have a political debate involved.
How has panini's profile in THIS THREAD got anything to do with immigration? this is NOT an immigration related thread. If you should police a person's profile in an immigration related thread no one would object, but this is the wrong thread. And isn't the default changeability the US ? Your accusations are pretty strong and doesn't seem to have any backing; what are the rumors that he has been spreading ? anti immigrant ???
If you should police this site, then ask the Admin's to close non immigration related threads that have a political debate involved.
Googler
02-20 03:03 PM
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
See update on this discussion on this thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17450).
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
See update on this discussion on this thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17450).
more...
nviren
02-12 01:01 PM
Hi,
In the past any leftover numbers from undersubscribed countries were being given to the oversubscribed countries in the final quarter of the year (Jul-Sept), That's how so many of indians and chinese got their GCs over last 4-5 years.
My question is, is that still the policy of the USCIS? Will USCIS use the leftover numbers from ROW for India/China.
The possibiliy of having quite a few of leftover numbers is high as ROW is current for EB2. That might bail out, to some extent, EB2 India.
You of course have to count the effect of new memorandum about FBI Name check into this mix.
Thanks,
Viren
In the past any leftover numbers from undersubscribed countries were being given to the oversubscribed countries in the final quarter of the year (Jul-Sept), That's how so many of indians and chinese got their GCs over last 4-5 years.
My question is, is that still the policy of the USCIS? Will USCIS use the leftover numbers from ROW for India/China.
The possibiliy of having quite a few of leftover numbers is high as ROW is current for EB2. That might bail out, to some extent, EB2 India.
You of course have to count the effect of new memorandum about FBI Name check into this mix.
Thanks,
Viren
2010 Rachel Weisz#39; fairytale life
snthampi
08-02 04:36 PM
Guys! This is getting interesting. Guess what I found!! Now you can find out the names of your local friendly Amway Independent Business owners!!!
Go to https://www.amway.com/Shop/Registration/CustomerRegistration.aspx?Country=US
Scroll down to the section titled "Benefits of Being Affiliated with an Independent Business Owner", select "Show me a list of IBOs in my area that I can select from".... put your zip code and voila!!!!
I put my own zipcode 94536, and most of the names are desi. Confirms my suspicion that there are more desi's sucked into this than........
Now post what you find in your area!
Good find. I tried for my zip code and it gives a few random names, when you try again and again for the same zip.
Go to https://www.amway.com/Shop/Registration/CustomerRegistration.aspx?Country=US
Scroll down to the section titled "Benefits of Being Affiliated with an Independent Business Owner", select "Show me a list of IBOs in my area that I can select from".... put your zip code and voila!!!!
I put my own zipcode 94536, and most of the names are desi. Confirms my suspicion that there are more desi's sucked into this than........
Now post what you find in your area!
Good find. I tried for my zip code and it gives a few random names, when you try again and again for the same zip.
more...
ronhira
01-13 04:38 PM
So i was right GCPerm was kicked out of this forum for being EB3 ................
Tell me something Ron . In you opinion what would freak out all the guys more and again
- If I am GCPerm
- If I am NOT GCPerm
Let me know which so that i will agree to be the opposite and then hopefully the guys will calm down or not freak out more. A whole day with the guys here on IV and i am feeling like i took care of 20 bawling, crying children for the complete time. I am not sure i can do that for another day.
Just between you and me I am not GCPerm but shhhhhhhhh don't tell anyone anything or it might lead to another round of slugfest.
i'll not tell anyone that u'r gcperm.... ok?
btw, no one is freaked out knowing that u'r gcperm..... i guess no one cares for u....
Tell me something Ron . In you opinion what would freak out all the guys more and again
- If I am GCPerm
- If I am NOT GCPerm
Let me know which so that i will agree to be the opposite and then hopefully the guys will calm down or not freak out more. A whole day with the guys here on IV and i am feeling like i took care of 20 bawling, crying children for the complete time. I am not sure i can do that for another day.
Just between you and me I am not GCPerm but shhhhhhhhh don't tell anyone anything or it might lead to another round of slugfest.
i'll not tell anyone that u'r gcperm.... ok?
btw, no one is freaked out knowing that u'r gcperm..... i guess no one cares for u....
hair How to Get Rachel Weisz#39;s Hair
ns007
04-28 10:29 PM
Administrator,
There is an another thread on the same topic. Please merge both threads.
Sorry, I didn't see that thread before opening this.
There is an another thread on the same topic. Please merge both threads.
Sorry, I didn't see that thread before opening this.
more...
miguy
03-20 08:11 AM
You can renew your permanent resident card only if you lived in canada for atleast 2 years in 5 years. And to get the card, you need to get a guarantor signature who knows you for atleast 2 years e.g. a physician, attorney, etc
hot Rachel Weisz
srkamath
07-23 07:03 PM
Source of information ?
From what i inferred from the text of the law,
The 28.6% limits do apply to FB to EB spill overs, as the FB spillover from the prev FY is used to arrive at this year's EB limit.
The 28.6% limit cannot be applied to EB1 to EB2 to EB3 spillovers, because that would not make sense. From what i understood, if there are 10k spilling over from EB1 to EB2, then they all go to EB2 and are not shared 2860 each between Eb2 and Eb3.
Let me know if you agree with the above.
I also realized that, if ever there is a deluge of EB1 applications and it reaches the annual limit of 28.6%+(EB4+EB5)leftovers, then that's it for EB1 ! even if Eb2 orEB3 are undersubscribed!
Ironic isn't it? Strange is the INA.
From what i inferred from the text of the law,
The 28.6% limits do apply to FB to EB spill overs, as the FB spillover from the prev FY is used to arrive at this year's EB limit.
The 28.6% limit cannot be applied to EB1 to EB2 to EB3 spillovers, because that would not make sense. From what i understood, if there are 10k spilling over from EB1 to EB2, then they all go to EB2 and are not shared 2860 each between Eb2 and Eb3.
Let me know if you agree with the above.
I also realized that, if ever there is a deluge of EB1 applications and it reaches the annual limit of 28.6%+(EB4+EB5)leftovers, then that's it for EB1 ! even if Eb2 orEB3 are undersubscribed!
Ironic isn't it? Strange is the INA.
more...
house Rachel Weisz at “The Brothers
gcisadawg
07-17 12:09 PM
DOS (or any government agency for that matter) cannot interpert the law differently for each year. One law and one interpretation. It can't follow the different set of rules when implementing the law each year. Initally, INA was designed to follow vertical spill over (diversity was important than preference catagory). But, AC21 law ameneded the INA to force the DOS to implement horizontal spill over (preference catagory is important than diversity). However, DOS was still follwing verical spill over evenafter the AC21 act till 2006. If DOS followd the law correctly, EB2-I and Ch would have never been retrogressed since 2005. Lucky for DOS, no one has challanged the DOS. Now they realized the mistake and follow the law correctly. They follw this till if congress changes the law.
Yes, horizontal spill-over gives preference to EB Category. But the vertical spillover didnt promote diversity. It just ensured that the applicant with the oldest PD was allotted the first available spill-over visa number irrespective of his EB category or country of origin. This just ensured that someone doesnt wait too long. as you know, most of the vertical spillovers were consumed by EB3-India and china. Then, how can it promote diversity.
to make it simple, here is my understanding
Vertical spill over --> PD precedes EB category and Country of Origin
Horizontal spill over --> EB Category precedes PD and country of origin.
Thanks,
gcisadawg
Yes, horizontal spill-over gives preference to EB Category. But the vertical spillover didnt promote diversity. It just ensured that the applicant with the oldest PD was allotted the first available spill-over visa number irrespective of his EB category or country of origin. This just ensured that someone doesnt wait too long. as you know, most of the vertical spillovers were consumed by EB3-India and china. Then, how can it promote diversity.
to make it simple, here is my understanding
Vertical spill over --> PD precedes EB category and Country of Origin
Horizontal spill over --> EB Category precedes PD and country of origin.
Thanks,
gcisadawg
tattoo rachel weisz hair mummy. hair
sathweb
02-15 07:18 PM
Please stick to subject of this thread.
or
Please some one close this thread. Its already old news.
(Its going out of control)
or
Please some one close this thread. Its already old news.
(Its going out of control)
more...
pictures rachel weisz hair. hair
Marphad
05-18 10:44 AM
Oh Yeah? Says who? You? and made you the boss?
So you mean to say we have to listen to imposter like you who is roaming around in immigration forum with chargeability as United States? There could be only 2 reasons for this:
1. You want to use fake profile to spread non-sense rumours and un-necessary posts.
2. You are anti-immigrant.
In both cases I want to show you door. Have a nice day buddy. Now please leave.
So you mean to say we have to listen to imposter like you who is roaming around in immigration forum with chargeability as United States? There could be only 2 reasons for this:
1. You want to use fake profile to spread non-sense rumours and un-necessary posts.
2. You are anti-immigrant.
In both cases I want to show you door. Have a nice day buddy. Now please leave.
dresses dresses makeup Rachel Weisz
newbie2020
07-03 09:41 PM
My LC applied in Feb 2008
LC approved Apr 2008
I-140 Applied May 2008
My 6th yr H1B expires Dec 2008
H1B Maxout Jan 2008
I am short by around 20 days Should i recapture the days by going out of country for 20 days and apply H1B 1yr extension, Will i Qualify for 3 yrs in this case...?
or should i just Apply for I-140 PP in Oct 2008 and 3 yr H1B Extension without worrying about recapturing 20 days.
LC approved Apr 2008
I-140 Applied May 2008
My 6th yr H1B expires Dec 2008
H1B Maxout Jan 2008
I am short by around 20 days Should i recapture the days by going out of country for 20 days and apply H1B 1yr extension, Will i Qualify for 3 yrs in this case...?
or should i just Apply for I-140 PP in Oct 2008 and 3 yr H1B Extension without worrying about recapturing 20 days.
more...
makeup Rachel Weisz Hair
s_r_e_e
09-23 10:20 PM
I will send from the Bussiness Email ID tomorrow.
girlfriend hair rachel weisz the mummy.
unitednations
02-13 01:10 AM
I thought the alien must be present on a dual intent non-immigrant visa to be eligible for AOS (I-485). I don't think people on F1/F4, B1/B2 are eligible to file for AOS while in the US. Consular Processing may be a different story.The H,L and O NIVs are the only ones that I know have dual intent.
to file a 485 a person has to be in non immigrant status.
The dual intent doctrine applies if a person is on a non dual intent visa and they file a 140 or a 485 and they then try to extend their non immigrant visa. At this point it will get denied. However, as long as they dont' have to renew it (because they have a 485 filed), then they are good to go for the greencard.
it is only an issue in trying to renew a non dual intent visa once you have showed immigrant intent. This would be a person who can't file the 485 but instead has a 140 or 130 filed for them. At this point dos/uscis would not allow them to extend the status or allow them back into the country.
to file a 485 a person has to be in non immigrant status.
The dual intent doctrine applies if a person is on a non dual intent visa and they file a 140 or a 485 and they then try to extend their non immigrant visa. At this point it will get denied. However, as long as they dont' have to renew it (because they have a 485 filed), then they are good to go for the greencard.
it is only an issue in trying to renew a non dual intent visa once you have showed immigrant intent. This would be a person who can't file the 485 but instead has a 140 or 130 filed for them. At this point dos/uscis would not allow them to extend the status or allow them back into the country.
hairstyles Hair; rachel weisz hairstyles.
vishwams
10-18 05:07 PM
Dear Folks,
I got my Canadian PR in Sep 2005. I did the landing and gave a canadian address after which I got my PR. After that I was under the assumption that I have to spend atleast 2 years in a span of five years and did not take any attempt to land into Canada using PR. I am thinking of applying for SIN by post while I reside in US.
I am not sure now if my PR is still valid??
Can someone advice?
I got my Canadian PR in Sep 2005. I did the landing and gave a canadian address after which I got my PR. After that I was under the assumption that I have to spend atleast 2 years in a span of five years and did not take any attempt to land into Canada using PR. I am thinking of applying for SIN by post while I reside in US.
I am not sure now if my PR is still valid??
Can someone advice?
shirish
07-14 01:30 PM
Hi,
I applied for I-485 for myself , my wife ans son, on July 27th 07 (Thi sis the receipr date), My lawyer did not send the medical reports with the application. Currently the reports are with him. Medical exam was done on July 18 07. My PD will be current in Aug 08(as per the bulletin). I am sure i will get an RFE for the medical reports, and most probably it wil come in AUG 08 or later.
My question is, do i need to go for medical exam again , or can my lawer send the reports that he has with him to USCIS in reply to the RFE? I am confused since, by the time i get the RFE, the reports would be more than 1 year old.
-Shirish
I applied for I-485 for myself , my wife ans son, on July 27th 07 (Thi sis the receipr date), My lawyer did not send the medical reports with the application. Currently the reports are with him. Medical exam was done on July 18 07. My PD will be current in Aug 08(as per the bulletin). I am sure i will get an RFE for the medical reports, and most probably it wil come in AUG 08 or later.
My question is, do i need to go for medical exam again , or can my lawer send the reports that he has with him to USCIS in reply to the RFE? I am confused since, by the time i get the RFE, the reports would be more than 1 year old.
-Shirish
Marphad
05-18 03:59 PM
I think conventional war was ended. But the mistrust is still there. New organization and another set of gurilla warfare will be start very soon. Many LTTE still in Sri Lanka. They may regroup after some time. The refuge camp will be breading ground. If need peace, settle these refugees to good housing, education and jobs. If Sri Lanka thinks the war is over with LTTE, and rule with same manner like before, no peace at sight. May be the unrest will be not in the north, may be in south.
For long lasting peace, cosider all minority with equal rights, like in India. Minority get more rights, because of vote bank.
I think SL government will emphasize on providing jobs etc to tamilians to resolve the issue in right way. They won the war part 1 now most critical is part 2...
For long lasting peace, cosider all minority with equal rights, like in India. Minority get more rights, because of vote bank.
I think SL government will emphasize on providing jobs etc to tamilians to resolve the issue in right way. They won the war part 1 now most critical is part 2...
0 comments:
Post a Comment