greeta
04-21 01:20 PM
Hi,
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
wallpaper David Beckham Hairstyle How To
dante1271
08-05 07:01 PM
Like your thoughts on these topic... pardon me for my ignorance but whats the big deal about Name Check? will this take longer than the rest of the processing stages?
eb3retro
06-06 07:37 PM
Or you are going to be more scared and let these suckers suck you out more? The reason I am skeptical is, time to time we IVians receive these kind of posts all of a sudden and they vanish all of a sudden too. People like american desi give you all a fantastic response and my frustration is not knowing if you guys follow it. This is america for godsake and there are laws protecting the employee from these so called bodyshoppers who almost dont exist anymore. Partly the reason is because these suckers played so much of illegal things in the past, such as writing ridiculous contracts and preying on people like you. I even wonder how come people sign these contracts even in these days. Please take up american desi's advice and stand up for yourself and show your vendor that you are not scared of these things. and last but not the least, for your sake and for other people who may fall for this trap to this vendor, please do report them to department of labor.
Bottom line - pls dont come here for a quick response. We treat questions posted by others seriously and give meaningful and sincere reply. And on your end, please do what needs to be done.
Hi
I used to work to a client in Phx, got an interview request @ a financial firm in New york cleared it and vendor started processin' my H1 transfer. For the interview or for rellocation i wasn't paid anything. But before the start date bcoz of my credit report client rejected my offer.
But the vendor nuthin' in writing was the one who asked me to resign and bcoz of him was on bench for almost 2 1/2 months, now they say somewhere in the contract which says i have to repay all the expenses they spend on me which was close to $5000.
They sent an email sayin' i haven't provided the services to them from the start date indicated on the contract so have to repay them. Will i have to repay them jst bcoz i signed tht piece of the contract but i was rejected by the client, they said they won't try for new jobs i have to search myself as well they haven't paid me anything since they got my H1.
Do i stand any chance if i contact DOL or a lawyer not payin' them.
Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.
The contract that you signed is valid only if UBS and your vendor have a work order between them stating that you will be offering your services to UBS from such and such date. As you failed the background check, I assume that they never executed such a work order.
Your vendor is asking for trouble. They're supposed to pay you the prevailing wage from the day you started working with them until the termination of employment. Moreover termination of employment is applicable only if they notify USCIS to cancel your H1. In such a case they're supposed to provide a return flight ticket for you and your dependents.
Your employer obviously doesn't know the rules governing H1 and is trying to play scare tactics with you. All you need to do now is to find another employer and transfer your H1. Then file a complaint with DOL to recover the backwages for the period you were on bench.
Bottom line - pls dont come here for a quick response. We treat questions posted by others seriously and give meaningful and sincere reply. And on your end, please do what needs to be done.
Hi
I used to work to a client in Phx, got an interview request @ a financial firm in New york cleared it and vendor started processin' my H1 transfer. For the interview or for rellocation i wasn't paid anything. But before the start date bcoz of my credit report client rejected my offer.
But the vendor nuthin' in writing was the one who asked me to resign and bcoz of him was on bench for almost 2 1/2 months, now they say somewhere in the contract which says i have to repay all the expenses they spend on me which was close to $5000.
They sent an email sayin' i haven't provided the services to them from the start date indicated on the contract so have to repay them. Will i have to repay them jst bcoz i signed tht piece of the contract but i was rejected by the client, they said they won't try for new jobs i have to search myself as well they haven't paid me anything since they got my H1.
Do i stand any chance if i contact DOL or a lawyer not payin' them.
Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.
The contract that you signed is valid only if UBS and your vendor have a work order between them stating that you will be offering your services to UBS from such and such date. As you failed the background check, I assume that they never executed such a work order.
Your vendor is asking for trouble. They're supposed to pay you the prevailing wage from the day you started working with them until the termination of employment. Moreover termination of employment is applicable only if they notify USCIS to cancel your H1. In such a case they're supposed to provide a return flight ticket for you and your dependents.
Your employer obviously doesn't know the rules governing H1 and is trying to play scare tactics with you. All you need to do now is to find another employer and transfer your H1. Then file a complaint with DOL to recover the backwages for the period you were on bench.
2011 david beckham hair 2009.
tabletpc
11-29 04:45 PM
Thanks everyone..i will send it 2m with bank draft in C$.
its better to have plan B...
its better to have plan B...
more...
nozerd
01-15 02:34 PM
The centers seem pretty spread out Geographically. Which part of the country do you live ?
texcan
09-10 10:15 AM
Nothing surprising here. I have yet to hear about one desi employer who has not exploited H1b. The system is set up to favor the employer. Employees hardly have a choice. Those in favor of increasing the quota should also lobby for complete portability without any penalty to keep the system fair.
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
Friends,
I must say, not all employers exploit people on H1b.
My take is it depends on the business ethics of company owner.
I have been with my current employer since last 6 years, no problems. Some of my friends have mentioned great things about their employers as well.
In all with stories heard, it will be good idea to create a rating or forum of such employers. let people vent off some steam and may warn others from getting into issues.
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
Friends,
I must say, not all employers exploit people on H1b.
My take is it depends on the business ethics of company owner.
I have been with my current employer since last 6 years, no problems. Some of my friends have mentioned great things about their employers as well.
In all with stories heard, it will be good idea to create a rating or forum of such employers. let people vent off some steam and may warn others from getting into issues.
more...
purplehazea
06-11 01:42 PM
sorry to burst your bubble sands. I am just repeating what NPR, NYT, Washington Post and any reputed national newspaper has said about the Prez.
2010 Haircut from David Beckham
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
nda050325
07-16 06:22 PM
Sangeetha
This seems to be a new requirement specificed by the consulate.
I havent seen any prespecified format of this letter. But it should contain as much information as possible about your past employment. Some key points would be
Name
Title:
DOJ:
Skillset
Primary duties handled (be as descriptive as possible).
HR Contact Info:
You may want to modify the following template to your skillset:
This letter serves to confirm that Mr. First Name Last name was employed full time in Company name from MM_DD_YYYY to MM_DD_YYYY, in the capacity of OFFICIAL DESIGNATION.
His roles included MENTION ATLEAST 5 BULLET POINTS.
His skill sets included MENTION ALL YOUR SKILLS
He has successfully completed the TRAININGS DONE, and is a Certified GIVE DETAILS.,
Please let us know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
HUMAN RESOURCES
===
This seems to be a new requirement specificed by the consulate.
I havent seen any prespecified format of this letter. But it should contain as much information as possible about your past employment. Some key points would be
Name
Title:
DOJ:
Skillset
Primary duties handled (be as descriptive as possible).
HR Contact Info:
You may want to modify the following template to your skillset:
This letter serves to confirm that Mr. First Name Last name was employed full time in Company name from MM_DD_YYYY to MM_DD_YYYY, in the capacity of OFFICIAL DESIGNATION.
His roles included MENTION ATLEAST 5 BULLET POINTS.
His skill sets included MENTION ALL YOUR SKILLS
He has successfully completed the TRAININGS DONE, and is a Certified GIVE DETAILS.,
Please let us know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
HUMAN RESOURCES
===
hair david beckham hair 2011. hot
.jpg "david beckham hairstyle 2011.")
Danko
01-06 07:36 AM
I have no interest in fragmenting the site by covering new topics that are less designer focused and more for developers.
Sounds like a conflict of interest then:
kirupa.com - Shocked Resource for Making Designers better Developers!
:beam:
Sounds like a conflict of interest then:
kirupa.com - Shocked Resource for Making Designers better Developers!
:beam:
more...
bhasky25
08-13 02:17 PM
The fee increase is only for companies which has more 50% of their employees on H1B visa. So counting 85K visa's for 4 years is not correct.
hot David Beckham#39;s latest
anai
07-19 08:03 AM
If you are sponsoring your spouse, you need to submit an affidavit of support. It is I-134. This forms needs for you to submit bank statements, tax returns etc. with it.
This is incorrect.
The easiest way to address such questions is to take a few minutes to read the instructions to the form I-485 (which is available on the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-485.pdf). An affidavit of support is needed in the EB context, only if the applicant's family owns 5% percent or more of the sponsoring employer.
Sending tax forms, W-2, bank statements, etc. is part of the overdocumentation approach. But note that these are not required.
This question has been asked and answered many times. So please (a) search the forums before opening new threads and (b) read the instructions to the form.
Also, if any of the answers on this thread were useful, consider contributing to IV.
This is incorrect.
The easiest way to address such questions is to take a few minutes to read the instructions to the form I-485 (which is available on the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-485.pdf). An affidavit of support is needed in the EB context, only if the applicant's family owns 5% percent or more of the sponsoring employer.
Sending tax forms, W-2, bank statements, etc. is part of the overdocumentation approach. But note that these are not required.
This question has been asked and answered many times. So please (a) search the forums before opening new threads and (b) read the instructions to the form.
Also, if any of the answers on this thread were useful, consider contributing to IV.
more...
house david beckham hairstyles 2011
dingudi
06-08 07:59 PM
I don't live in the tri-state...
I have my W-2's from 99 and 00 so no need to call the University.
What I dont have is the actual return (1040nr) which I "mailed" at that time.
Who in the world makes copies of a tax form that was actually mailed. Oh, and kept it for 9 years!!!
You mention that you had graduate assistantship in 1999-2000 on F1. This means that you were paid for this assistantship , in terms of bi-weekly or monthly paycheck, correct? And you did file returns for that year as well as obviously you have W2.
So you may even have another effort to convince the IO that the W2 that you are providing is in fact because you worked as graduate assistant on-campus which is allowed being on F1 for the first 9 months of F1 and that you did not take any illegal work authorization. This should be obvious from employer name on W2 which is most likely the university. But make sure whoever is your attorney is , they make this point clear.
I have my W-2's from 99 and 00 so no need to call the University.
What I dont have is the actual return (1040nr) which I "mailed" at that time.
Who in the world makes copies of a tax form that was actually mailed. Oh, and kept it for 9 years!!!
You mention that you had graduate assistantship in 1999-2000 on F1. This means that you were paid for this assistantship , in terms of bi-weekly or monthly paycheck, correct? And you did file returns for that year as well as obviously you have W2.
So you may even have another effort to convince the IO that the W2 that you are providing is in fact because you worked as graduate assistant on-campus which is allowed being on F1 for the first 9 months of F1 and that you did not take any illegal work authorization. This should be obvious from employer name on W2 which is most likely the university. But make sure whoever is your attorney is , they make this point clear.
tattoo David here gives us a prime
Soul
05-27 09:31 AM
Grrrr :P
more...
pictures David Beckham Hairstyles
NKR
04-15 08:50 PM
Congratulations, I am happy for you.
dresses david beckham 2011 style.
Maverick_2008
02-23 06:43 PM
If we're forced to see the glass half full, delayed 140 processing may actually be good for some people who are about to be laid off and whose 140 is on shaky grounds. It might just buy'em some more time to switch employers and figure out alternatives.
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
more...
makeup new david beckham hairstyles
newuser
10-07 07:56 PM
Keep a copy of your paystub at your work place
PS: Official comes from DHS to your office not your home
Moreover how hard it is to keep a copy of your paystub at your desk
Its not a matter of piece of paper. What's the guarntee that they make not start asking
W2's, exp letters, passport copy, approval letter's etc.
PS: Official comes from DHS to your office not your home
Moreover how hard it is to keep a copy of your paystub at your desk
Its not a matter of piece of paper. What's the guarntee that they make not start asking
W2's, exp letters, passport copy, approval letter's etc.
girlfriend david beckham hairstyle 2011. david beckham hairstyles 2011.
saturnring11
07-22 06:31 PM
You should analyze this situation based both on what it does for your career and immigration prospects.
Let's say you accept the EB3 employment with the big company. Does that get you closer to where you want to be 5 years down the line?
Can you not find an equivalent company or another job at this consulting company that would be eligible for EB2? This would be the best of both worlds.
Life is about trade-offs. You've got to make the best choice for yourself weighing the pros and cons of the situation.
If you value your career over your GC and think this is the best you can do right now, by all means jump. Otherwise, be patient and find the combination of EB2 sponsorship at another more rewarding role.
Good luck!
Let's say you accept the EB3 employment with the big company. Does that get you closer to where you want to be 5 years down the line?
Can you not find an equivalent company or another job at this consulting company that would be eligible for EB2? This would be the best of both worlds.
Life is about trade-offs. You've got to make the best choice for yourself weighing the pros and cons of the situation.
If you value your career over your GC and think this is the best you can do right now, by all means jump. Otherwise, be patient and find the combination of EB2 sponsorship at another more rewarding role.
Good luck!
hairstyles david beckham hairstyle 2011.
kapilgogia
03-17 07:00 PM
Hi,
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
There is no requirement for number of employees. You need to make sure the company is financially capable to do H1. You must make sure you get salary equal or above the salary offered in your LC. And also the job duties are same or similar.
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
There is no requirement for number of employees. You need to make sure the company is financially capable to do H1. You must make sure you get salary equal or above the salary offered in your LC. And also the job duties are same or similar.
ash27
04-03 02:02 PM
It is still not very clear if working with companies like TekSystems on EAD is fine using AC-21.
This question has been asked before. However, I have not seen any specific answers regarding this. Any information will be appreciated.
Thanks
This question has been asked before. However, I have not seen any specific answers regarding this. Any information will be appreciated.
Thanks
excogitator
11-23 03:34 AM
All the Best Everyone!!! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment