BharatPremi
07-12 11:00 AM
Lawyers are willing to file before JULY as because then they can charge the
LEGAL fee. Wake up vivekm1309....
No. This statement may not be true for all lawyers. My lawyer is not going to charge anything additional as his professional fee.
LEGAL fee. Wake up vivekm1309....
No. This statement may not be true for all lawyers. My lawyer is not going to charge anything additional as his professional fee.
wildcat1313
03-30 04:53 PM
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
styrum
02-18 12:22 PM
I can't recall Democratic senators helping LEGAL immigrants during the CIR debate last year!
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the only amendment favorable for us.
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the only amendment favorable for us.
somex
05-19 12:13 PM
I think reapplying in two days is not a good idea. what makes you think that the consular officers would change their mind in two days? Now a days consulate wary on issuing visas. You need to have good justification (Documentation) before applying second time.
Hello,
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
Hello,
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
more...
Steve Mitchell
October 27th, 2003, 10:14 AM
I like the second shot quite a bit. I think that would look fantastic in a large nice frame.
gc28262
01-19 08:52 PM
Democrats lost it already. Brown wins
more...
Pineapple
10-10 09:44 PM
Yes, I did. That is how I came to know that I had to send the card back, with a fresh I765 (but no fees), and a letter explaining the error (as it it wasn't obvious).. my worry was (still is) that my application would join the pile of applications, and would sit there in the bottom.. another potential wait of six months..
So, I did all I could. I called up USCIS a couple of times, took an Info Pass appointment, and talked to an official at ASC when I went for my finger printing appointment.. They were all sorry about it, but could not do much to help. Returning and re-applying are the only options. However, I was told (not sure how much to believe), that since it is obviously their error, it would not take long to fix and they'll send me a corrected card earlier than it would have taken if it were a regular fresh application.
Anyway, my lawyer did her own checking and calling - we gave her the EAD and two fresh photos, and a copy of proof of identity (drivers license)
, and she promised to take care of it.
Will post if it works out well.. :)
So, I did all I could. I called up USCIS a couple of times, took an Info Pass appointment, and talked to an official at ASC when I went for my finger printing appointment.. They were all sorry about it, but could not do much to help. Returning and re-applying are the only options. However, I was told (not sure how much to believe), that since it is obviously their error, it would not take long to fix and they'll send me a corrected card earlier than it would have taken if it were a regular fresh application.
Anyway, my lawyer did her own checking and calling - we gave her the EAD and two fresh photos, and a copy of proof of identity (drivers license)
, and she promised to take care of it.
Will post if it works out well.. :)
logiclife
01-05 05:07 PM
As of yesterday, there was a collection of $5000. We need much more than that.
The details of contributions and fund-raising can be found at the "Why Contribute" link of the home page.
http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
Everything here is transparent. Please sign up as volunteer so we can have you more involved besides receiving money. That will also build your trust and in return your volunteer work will help everyone too.
logiclife.
The details of contributions and fund-raising can be found at the "Why Contribute" link of the home page.
http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
Everything here is transparent. Please sign up as volunteer so we can have you more involved besides receiving money. That will also build your trust and in return your volunteer work will help everyone too.
logiclife.
more...
psam
12-15 08:49 PM
I am the same boat. My wife got her card wheras I got a response to the SR we raised that my card was sent the same day as my 485 approval notice and it might been lost in mail. I was asked to file I-90. I called customer service several times and talked to 2nd level IO and all suggested to file I-90. I took infopass but gave a shot again by talking to 2nd level IO who went over my case and said that my card was never created so she raised a SR.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
senthil
06-12 05:33 AM
just the H1B filing receipt ( which is expected in few days of filin ) should be enough to be named "active" on H1B and no worry after that except finding an active project to work on.
more...
gcformeornot
01-16 07:49 PM
microsoft is laying off?
Rae
07-21 12:54 PM
If you look at those two forms, one 325A has a space for "Date and Place of Termination of Marriage". Form 325 does not have a space for that. They apparently want that information so you should update your filing with the proper form.
Rae
Rae
more...
when
02-29 08:42 AM
How can one find his/her receipt date if they dont have copy of their receipt notice, just the receipt notice?
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
FinalGC
05-12 05:02 PM
hopefulgc:
Are you willing???
Are you willing???
usirit
11-21 12:14 AM
You are from ROW....here are some things to consider....
Is your new employer filing your GC under EB-2? If the answer is yes, then you should definitely take the new job and re-file GC and not worry about your EB-3 perm that is pending.
If your new employer is going to file under EB-3, then you have to evaluate which job is better for you (as far as pay, position etc.). If you think the new job is much better than what you have now, then I think you should still go for it. Your PD is very recent and a PD of Aug 2007 and a PD of (say) Feb/Mar 2008 has approximately the same value (according to me).
You have a valid H-1B until June 2009 and since you will apply for your perm LC before June 2008, you are eligible for atleast 1 year H-1B renewals.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Thank you for your quick reply 'loudoggs'... of course it helps and it raise my confidence on the IV group....
I've actually just e-mailed the new employer attorney in order to evaluate the possibility of filling on a different employment-based category. Do you think I will be able to evaluate if I fit on EB-2 rather than my current category EB-3?
Comparing employers (IT field) the new one is offering a more up-to-date technology and improved package but I am so attached to my current one...
Is your new employer filing your GC under EB-2? If the answer is yes, then you should definitely take the new job and re-file GC and not worry about your EB-3 perm that is pending.
If your new employer is going to file under EB-3, then you have to evaluate which job is better for you (as far as pay, position etc.). If you think the new job is much better than what you have now, then I think you should still go for it. Your PD is very recent and a PD of Aug 2007 and a PD of (say) Feb/Mar 2008 has approximately the same value (according to me).
You have a valid H-1B until June 2009 and since you will apply for your perm LC before June 2008, you are eligible for atleast 1 year H-1B renewals.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Thank you for your quick reply 'loudoggs'... of course it helps and it raise my confidence on the IV group....
I've actually just e-mailed the new employer attorney in order to evaluate the possibility of filling on a different employment-based category. Do you think I will be able to evaluate if I fit on EB-2 rather than my current category EB-3?
Comparing employers (IT field) the new one is offering a more up-to-date technology and improved package but I am so attached to my current one...
more...
imneedy
02-04 01:33 PM
There is no need to change to H4. asaik , that is an extra un-necessary step.
AP should be enough.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
AP should be enough.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
lost_in_migration
05-15 12:33 PM
Is there already a poll like this for EB3?
abhijitp
01-26 05:42 PM
^^
sri1309
10-19 09:11 PM
immigration related only please.... imagine, I post related to a car, other did for which course is good, which school is good.. Lets stick to immigration issues for now.
santa123
07-16 08:48 AM
I am confused with regards to AOS Vs. CP and which one to choose.
My visa status is L1B with Company A and my green card for future employment is with Company B.
Since I am on L1B, should I choose AOS (Adjustment of status) or CP (Counslar processing) for my I485 processing. Which one wld be the best for me, since I may be in India when the dates become current or may be here in the US ? The timing is a big unknown.
IF I choose CP, what are the steps after I140 approval?
How hard is it to switch from AOS to CP or vice- versa?
What are the pros and cons for AOS Vs CP?
I am looking for some guidance from anyone who has gone through this / familiar with this situation. Thanks!
My visa status is L1B with Company A and my green card for future employment is with Company B.
Since I am on L1B, should I choose AOS (Adjustment of status) or CP (Counslar processing) for my I485 processing. Which one wld be the best for me, since I may be in India when the dates become current or may be here in the US ? The timing is a big unknown.
IF I choose CP, what are the steps after I140 approval?
How hard is it to switch from AOS to CP or vice- versa?
What are the pros and cons for AOS Vs CP?
I am looking for some guidance from anyone who has gone through this / familiar with this situation. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment