Mike Tyson Tattoos

You are not alone�

This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.

Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.


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

Company A in my case has not revoked my H1B, it's still in valid status. I had been to India too & I came back with same VISA on MARCH 12 2009. I have mentioned in the post also.
"snathan", can you tell me what are the options for me now in this situation?

If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????

If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.

Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FAQ2.pdf

link??

Live Video - C-SPAN2 | C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/)

walking_dude, cagedcactus and bestin

you guys are a terrific trio

My view is that IV must reassess and realign its goals. The goal of I-485 filing without a current PD is too ambitious to start with. Remember, I-485 is the most time-consuming and lengthy stage of a GC, what with security and background checks, tax records checks, prior legal stays in US and medical tests to name just a few. CIS is swamped with many I-485 applications as it is. If it opens the flood gates for 485 filing, its system will simply collapse under the stampede of estimated 1 million GC seekers. There is no chance in hell that CIS will throw open the gates of I-485 filing for all and sundry.

Moreover, there is this case of spouses becoming eligible for jobs after I-485 and EAD filing. No politician is going to stick his/her neck out on this. Remember, politicians are driven just by people�s mood, and average American simply despises any additions to his or her dreamland.

In the light of this revelation by me (hint - just kidding), IV must set realistic goals for itself. One of which is greater flexibility of movement between jobs for a GC seeker. In short, the GC stages that have been completed by a GC seeker should remain completed even if the GC aspirant moves between the similar profile jobs. So for example, if an applicant whose labor has been cleared leaves the job after this stage, at his/her new job he should be able to file I-140 at his/her new job without having to file a labor all over again. All that the applicant should be asked are the papers confirming the old labor approval and a supporting letter from the new employer that the new job matches the old job description.

Similarly, applicants with approved I-140 should be allowed to switch job while still retaining the validity of old I-140. At the new job they should not be required to go thru the first stages again. An employee should be able to attach his/her approved I-140 from a previous company at the time of filing I-485 in the new company instead of being required to obtain a new I-140 approval.

This is the goal that will sit easy with the politician, because it does not add any new job seekers in the employment market. Also, it has the ring of more freedom for the workers, some of them are actually stuck in a quasi-slavery like situation in their companies in the hope of a GC. Words like these are going to have more impact on politicians rather than a clamoring for employment authorization documents.

once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.

I fully agree.

I have filed I-140 in May 2007 and it is still pending. Is there anyone in this same situation??Please let me know to whom to contact.

-M

NSC is processing 140's filed on or before Apr 6,2007 - Once the processing dates shows your filing date, on 31st day, you can ask your employer to open a service request. NSC respond to your SR within 45 days. Hope this helps.

We are expecting, so I do not think it is possible to change insurance. We still tried and got rejected. So that we will leave us with COBRA in case my wife chooses to quit or something happens to her job. And does H4 visa affect COBRA coverage? If you can answer this question that will be very helpful.

She should be eligible for COBRA ... no issues.

And I guess she is also eligible for the discount/economic stimulus on COBRA. I did not see anything that suggest one must be a Citizen/LPR for that discount

Do you have a sample cover letter that you can share for self filing of EAD/AP and to what address the application should be posted. Thanks for the response..


Here is:

e-file 765(180 $)
Send copy of 485 along with printout of receipt
Wait for FP appointment
Done(got cards 40 days later)


I already did it for wife, son and myself.

Saved about 1500$

My H1 is expiring on 20 June 2007 along with my wife's H4. My employer is planning to apply extension only in the month of June 2007 .

However I am planning to apply a new H1 ( H4 -H1 status change) for my wife on April 1 2007 .

1) If H4 extension is filed in June which one will USICS considers ?

2) If H1B gets approved first and later H4 ext which I-94 will take precedence ? 3) Whether she can work from Oct 1 2007 or needs to go out of country and needs to get Visa stamped ?
4) Any petition can we make to the USICS ?

Thanks for your replies
ASR

Good observation, although I totally support this clause to oppose automatic citizenship.
Maybe you are right, but in the meantime there are hundreds of thousands of children which are U.S. Citizen and their parents are struggling to give them a normal life in this country.

They can't just see half of the problem: if they deny automatic citizenship, at the same time they should grant the right to have the same opportunities of all other citizens for those who are citizen with immigrant parents: both parent should be entitled to work and have complete freedom of changing employer, start a business, etc.

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..."



Hey Guys/ Gals

Senator 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 activiites 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

Highlights:
a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas

b)Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--

``(1) 290,000; and

c) Retaining Immigrants Who Have Been Educated in the United States

5 stars and posted comments..good job dude

Lying on the table.... End of discussion.

Before this discussion thread grows bigger and hopes get inflated, I thought I should quote logiclife's post on "Order to Lie on the Table", that was discussed sometime ago for a different amendment. Enjoy the logic and humor.

the attroney preparing with masters plus 7 years experience

he says not every application get audited but there are chances

per him its not post masters years ,its over all experience

Hello Gurus,

I have a question about H1 and L1.

Is it possible for one human being to have a simaltaneous H1 and an L1 visa AT THE SAME TIME. Now before everyone starts thinking i am crazy or laughing hysterically, let me explain my logic.

I have an H1 in a company who has a partner in Canada. I am thinking if i can somehow (IFF possible) without giving up my H1, get a simaltaneous L1 from the Canadian company in a sister concern of my US based company, then my wife could get an L2 and hence get a work permit.

So the plan is:
1) KEEP the original H1B
2) Get the Canadian partner to sponsor A PARALLEL L1 for a job in a sister company of my current company.
3) Apply for an L2 for my wife and get her work permit/SSN.

Now my questions are:

1) Is this possible AT ALL?
2) Can the L1 be extended? and is there any problem/caveat with L1 visas as compared to H1B?
3) My 6 years of H1B are up in 1.5 years so would my wife still be able to keep her L2?

Gurus can you give me some guidance. This tactic can be used by more of you as well, if you are a victim of retrogression and your spouse cant work.

It usually takes a long time for them to fix their own mistakes. So do not lose sleep over it. Write to the director of the service center. If that does not help, complain to CIS Ombudsman

My PD was not current in June07, company attorney applied for 3 year extension along with approved I-140. Receipt Date for H1B extension application was June 14th 2007 and H1B was approved on July27th 2007 for one year only. As per FAQ# 2(Q 17), I was eligible for 3 year extension, Can we ask for ammendment in H1B extension. If yes, what is the process for requesting ammendment and what document do we need to file. Any idea how much time it is going to take, is it going to take same time as H1B extension timeline. All your views and answers are welcome.



Here it is

Q #17 in http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf

Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations.

And here is what OH says in his breaking news for July 24th after this memo

0724/2007: AC 21 Three-Year Increment H-1B Extension Petition Availability in July and August 2007

Under Section 104(c) of AC 21 Act, those who have an approved I-140 petition or pending EB-485 application with the approved I-140 petition are eligible for the H-1B extension in three-year increment, if they cannot file EB-485 or EB-485 is pending but cannot be adjudicated because of the visa number unavailability for him/her. The question remained whether visa number should be unavailable at the time of filing of H-1B extension or at the time of adjudication of filing. The USCIS FAQ indicates that it will be determined by the date of filing rather than date of adjudication.


You should ask your lawyer to get an amendment. I read here yday somebody doing that.

see the paragraph in bold letters.................

Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.

He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.

He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

I am all for it. I know some members are bitter about this potential price hike but they can still choose not to, if they don't want to.

Actually, time is money. We should not underestimate the time value of our waiting in terms of dollars. It would be still beneficial to get the GC sooner despite higher cost and find the better paid jobs without strings attached. Still many good companies are unwilling to hire h-1 b for various reasons. The time value I have lost in years of waiting is a lot more costly.

As you all remember in economics, when the demand and supply doesn't meet and regulated with fixed price, there is a long line of waiting.

As the legal process is stuck, many people are considering marriage with citizens, which is not an option for me. If not well thought of before making a decision, many will eventually divorce and the cost will be even more costly for the individuals and to the society.

Sorry if that title is misleading.

How many people here are positive that USCIS will come up with premium processing feature for I-485 stage?

Don' worry about the available visa numbers. Just express your hunch feeling.

Incrementally the waiting game is being reduced by incorporating premium processing for H1-B, Labor and lately I-140. Why not for I-485?

I am hopefull of this happening next year.
What about you?