BharatPremi
03-26 03:59 PM
I appreciate your point of view and bringing forth the practical reality in this situation. However, your attitude and tone, which seems to suggest that this is a lost cause and a helpless situation, is somewhat discouraging.
Nobody is suggesting that you drop your job search, drop everything, and file a law suit. What do you do? You go and find a job elsewhere, of course. You are right, the reality is that employers may ask you questions about your visa/immigration status. But there is a better way to handle such situations. Mark had posted some great tips on that. Even after all that, you may end up in a situation such as yours - where you mentioned that 5 employers told you that they will not hire somebody on EAD. You can remain quiet about it and go about your life, or you can do something about it. Its up to you.
Think about the visa delays, retrogression, etc. You could have stayed quiet and let the lawmakers, employers and the government deal with it or you could have done something about it. There is nothing "illegal" that the government is doing by making you wait years for a green card. But you did not sit quiet about it, did you? You joined the cause of IV, you wrote letters to the President, right?
Employers have the right to make a policy or a hiring decision that they want a person with certain skill set or experience, etc. They can find a tons of reasons not to interview or hire somebody. But race, gender, immigration status, etc. CANNOT be one of the reasons or criteria. This is my understanding of the law. I believe it is written in simple English that an employer CANNOT discriminate or make hiring decisions based on immigration status unless mandated by the job requirement (such as security clearance).
You are blindly assuming that whatever the employers are doing is within legal bounds, without questioning, even when the documents (see I-9 form, or DOL's web site for example) clearly state that such practices are illegal. (I am not a lawyer, this is my understanding of the law.) All I am saying is that if I were in this situation (denied on EAD), I would write to the heads of HR, ask a lawyer if this constitutes discrimination, call the OSC hot line, ask in the forums for employment law, contact ACLU or other civil rights groups. Heck, I am not affected by this (yet), and I still did some of the above because I have the urge to find out if this is indeed discrimination as viewed by the law and if so, do something about it. You don't need written evidence for any of these.
You still did not get it. Without evidence of discrimination it would be difficult to fight against... Forget this for a moment, in any law based battle you have to have a evidence. It is not that I do not want to fight or somebody do not want to fight. How could you make the base for fighting? This other guy, with his sheer luck (And with Capital One's stupidity) could get written evidence and so he has a valid base to fight against. And without evidence, whatever you write to whomsoever authirities, it would just be a blabbering. Even as one platform if IV decides to fight against this, IV team (Or lawyers whom we appoint) will ask the evidence first to make the case. Other thing, do not forget, what we could achieve in July 2007, the base was definately a first screw up from USCIS ( That is an evidence...). Once that screw up happened we could right away make it a reference and could make it a battle point.. Do you still understand or you do not want to understand?
Nobody is suggesting that you drop your job search, drop everything, and file a law suit. What do you do? You go and find a job elsewhere, of course. You are right, the reality is that employers may ask you questions about your visa/immigration status. But there is a better way to handle such situations. Mark had posted some great tips on that. Even after all that, you may end up in a situation such as yours - where you mentioned that 5 employers told you that they will not hire somebody on EAD. You can remain quiet about it and go about your life, or you can do something about it. Its up to you.
Think about the visa delays, retrogression, etc. You could have stayed quiet and let the lawmakers, employers and the government deal with it or you could have done something about it. There is nothing "illegal" that the government is doing by making you wait years for a green card. But you did not sit quiet about it, did you? You joined the cause of IV, you wrote letters to the President, right?
Employers have the right to make a policy or a hiring decision that they want a person with certain skill set or experience, etc. They can find a tons of reasons not to interview or hire somebody. But race, gender, immigration status, etc. CANNOT be one of the reasons or criteria. This is my understanding of the law. I believe it is written in simple English that an employer CANNOT discriminate or make hiring decisions based on immigration status unless mandated by the job requirement (such as security clearance).
You are blindly assuming that whatever the employers are doing is within legal bounds, without questioning, even when the documents (see I-9 form, or DOL's web site for example) clearly state that such practices are illegal. (I am not a lawyer, this is my understanding of the law.) All I am saying is that if I were in this situation (denied on EAD), I would write to the heads of HR, ask a lawyer if this constitutes discrimination, call the OSC hot line, ask in the forums for employment law, contact ACLU or other civil rights groups. Heck, I am not affected by this (yet), and I still did some of the above because I have the urge to find out if this is indeed discrimination as viewed by the law and if so, do something about it. You don't need written evidence for any of these.
You still did not get it. Without evidence of discrimination it would be difficult to fight against... Forget this for a moment, in any law based battle you have to have a evidence. It is not that I do not want to fight or somebody do not want to fight. How could you make the base for fighting? This other guy, with his sheer luck (And with Capital One's stupidity) could get written evidence and so he has a valid base to fight against. And without evidence, whatever you write to whomsoever authirities, it would just be a blabbering. Even as one platform if IV decides to fight against this, IV team (Or lawyers whom we appoint) will ask the evidence first to make the case. Other thing, do not forget, what we could achieve in July 2007, the base was definately a first screw up from USCIS ( That is an evidence...). Once that screw up happened we could right away make it a reference and could make it a battle point.. Do you still understand or you do not want to understand?
wallpaper hot evil goldfish cartoon. to
whitecollarslave
03-27 04:23 PM
IMHO you misinterpreted the memo. An employer can definitely choose not to hire based on immigration status. This has happened in the past (circa 2001) and evidently many employers do not hire H1B or any employees that require "job related" sponsorship. From the same link, in the next para it says that employers can clearly specify that they will NOT do sponsorship without violating the law. The only question is what is considered a sponsorship, any restricted position (in terms of job responsibility) can constitute a sponsorship (where by employers have legal burden beyond what it takes to hire a US Citizien/Permanent Resident for the same position). H1B definitely falls into this category and EAD borders that category. I am not an expert in labor laws but my experience says that employers have too much control on who they want to hire they can get by with almost anything. The biggest hurdle against any law suit is, EAD is an obscure document with very little clarity about rights that come with it and its usage. It was supposed to be an interim document whose usage only now is becoming main stream. May be one law suit or precedent will clarify it all. But once again employers will get by it the same way they get by with age, ethic, gender and racial descrimination.
Thanks for pointing this out. But you are confusing EAD with H-1B. You are right to quote that its legal to refuse employment to somebody who requires sponsorship (H-1B). That does not mean that refusing somebody with EAD is also legal. Your assumption or conclusion about that is not true. As soon as you use EAD you lose your H-1 status. EAD is not tied to H-1Bs or EB immigrants. EAD is issued to a whole bunch of immigrant types including refugees, FB, etc. There is no sponsorship required to hire somebody on EAD. A letter of job duties is a whole different story and nothing to do with hiring practice.
There is nothing obscure about EAD. Employment Authorization Document - if you have it, its valid for work anywhere in the US. Whats the use of EAD if employers won't accept it? What you say about EAD's usage becoming main stream only recently is not true. We need to start thinking outside the box of EB/H-1B, and so should the recruiters. It maybe true that the IT recruiters who normally hire people on either H-1B or green cards are now having people with EADs. But they are ignorant and they are breaking the law by having a policy to not hire somebody on EAD.
You are right, employers do have a lot of control in who they can hire. But they CANNOT pick and choose based on nationality, race, etc. Same way, as per Federal law, they CANNOT choose people who have only green card and reject somebody who has an EAD. (See the question from FAQ I posted earlier). If an employer says that they will not hire somebody on EAD, they are refusing to hire not just EB immigrants but also refugees, agricultural workers, FB immigrants. That is crystal clear discrimination as per Federal law.
The only thing that may create a problem is if the DHS and the Federal law treats a EB immigrant with an EAD differently than a FB, refugee or other immigrant with an EAD. (I had asked about this earlier)
I appreciate that you guys bring out opposing views but I am saddened by the attitude of our community of being helpless and not believing in our rights. It bothers me to know that the highly educated members of such an affluent community will surrender without even trying. This has nothing to do with the state of labor market. Wake up folks! The Federal government has a whole agency to protect people against such discrimination, and we are here speculating on nuances. If somebody denied you employment on EAD, just talk to them and see what they say. You don't need anything in writing.
What would you do if the same employers told you that they will not hire you simply because you wear a turban or you are from China (or Bulgaria or Pakistan)?
Thanks for pointing this out. But you are confusing EAD with H-1B. You are right to quote that its legal to refuse employment to somebody who requires sponsorship (H-1B). That does not mean that refusing somebody with EAD is also legal. Your assumption or conclusion about that is not true. As soon as you use EAD you lose your H-1 status. EAD is not tied to H-1Bs or EB immigrants. EAD is issued to a whole bunch of immigrant types including refugees, FB, etc. There is no sponsorship required to hire somebody on EAD. A letter of job duties is a whole different story and nothing to do with hiring practice.
There is nothing obscure about EAD. Employment Authorization Document - if you have it, its valid for work anywhere in the US. Whats the use of EAD if employers won't accept it? What you say about EAD's usage becoming main stream only recently is not true. We need to start thinking outside the box of EB/H-1B, and so should the recruiters. It maybe true that the IT recruiters who normally hire people on either H-1B or green cards are now having people with EADs. But they are ignorant and they are breaking the law by having a policy to not hire somebody on EAD.
You are right, employers do have a lot of control in who they can hire. But they CANNOT pick and choose based on nationality, race, etc. Same way, as per Federal law, they CANNOT choose people who have only green card and reject somebody who has an EAD. (See the question from FAQ I posted earlier). If an employer says that they will not hire somebody on EAD, they are refusing to hire not just EB immigrants but also refugees, agricultural workers, FB immigrants. That is crystal clear discrimination as per Federal law.
The only thing that may create a problem is if the DHS and the Federal law treats a EB immigrant with an EAD differently than a FB, refugee or other immigrant with an EAD. (I had asked about this earlier)
I appreciate that you guys bring out opposing views but I am saddened by the attitude of our community of being helpless and not believing in our rights. It bothers me to know that the highly educated members of such an affluent community will surrender without even trying. This has nothing to do with the state of labor market. Wake up folks! The Federal government has a whole agency to protect people against such discrimination, and we are here speculating on nuances. If somebody denied you employment on EAD, just talk to them and see what they say. You don't need anything in writing.
What would you do if the same employers told you that they will not hire you simply because you wear a turban or you are from China (or Bulgaria or Pakistan)?
Nil
03-10 12:26 PM
This idea has reached critical mass.
Great to see individuals pursuing the efforts of calling their government.
Is there something we can do collectively as a part of IV?
Great to see individuals pursuing the efforts of calling their government.
Is there something we can do collectively as a part of IV?
2011 Cartoon Goldfish Rigged
PlainSpeak
03-29 11:58 AM
Man you made my day... atleast i can be happy for coming three weeks, then i will go back to normal after Visa Bulletin Copy/paste.
Ha Ha Ha .....
MC you are an eternal pessimist !!!
Ha Ha Ha .....
MC you are an eternal pessimist !!!
more...
funny
09-09 06:34 PM
Posting it in this thread, as this is related to HR5882.
Make Immigration Work for Working Immigrants
http://townhall.com/Columnists/CesarConda/2008/09/09/make_immigration_work_for_working_immigrants
Employment-based immigrants contribute greatly to America, although you would not know it from the way current U.S. policy treats them. Due to low quotas, a typical skilled immigrant sponsored by an American company now waits 6 to 10 years for a green card (permanent residence). The House Judiciary Committee marks up legislation this week to change that, representing likely the only measure Congress may take in the remaining weeks to aid innovation, the economy and the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
H.R. 5882, authored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would reduce wait times for green cards and help retain talented people in the United States. It would do this by providing green cards that had been allotted in previous years but went unused, primarily due to bureaucratic obstacles.
�A developed country�s competitiveness now comes primarily from its capacity to innovate � the ability to create the new products and services that people want,� according to Curtis Carlson of the Silicon Valley research firm SRI International. Skilled immigrants are a vital source of America�s capacity to innovate.
The National Venture Capital Association reports that 1 in 4 publicly-trade companies that began with venture capital since 1990 had at least one immigrant founder. While the vast majority of employees at U.S. firms are Americans, when U.S. employers recruit on college campuses they find foreign nationals represent a high proportion of the graduates in key fields. In 2006, 73% of new electrical engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. were granted to international students, according to the National Science Foundation, while in 2005, foreign nationals received 55 percent of electrical engineering master�s degrees and 42 percent of computer science master�s degrees.
H-1B temporary visas, which have been exhausted each of the past 5 fiscal years, only allow individuals to stay on a temporary basis, so an employment-based green card is necessary to stay here permanently. The separate quota for green cards for skilled immigrants is set at 140,000 a year (including dependents of the skilled immigrant). That quota has also been insufficient to meet demand, creating waits of 6 to 10 years for a green card.
The great uncertainty these waits create lead some to give up and leave the United States and others to not even begin the process. The current long waits �cause a reverse brain drain affecting American competitiveness and innovation,� according to Aman Kapoor, executive director of the group Immigration Voice. �At the same time, these green card backlogs create severe quality of life issues for the applicants and their families.�
Those who understand markets realize that there is no such thing as a fixed number of jobs, as critics of high skill immigration maintain. A 2008 National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) study found that for every skilled foreign national requested (for H-1B visas) with the Department of Labor, U.S. technology companies increase their employment by 5 workers. Many U.S. executives confirm this experience at their firms. Looking to America�s next generation of scientists and engineers, a 2004 NFAP study found more than half of the finalists for the Intel Science Talent Search, the leading contest for top U.S. high school science students, were the children of skilled immigrants.
In addition to the reduced waiting times for green cards from H.R. 5882, Congress can take other steps. It can fix the labor certification process for skilled immigrants under which the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requires companies to engage in expensive and time-consuming advertisements to show no qualified Americans are available for certain jobs. Neither the law nor the original DOL regulations required such advertisements. Yet DOL is using its questionable authority to, among other things, audit thousands of green card cases from the nation�s largest immigration law firm, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. The Fragomen firm has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging DOL has exceeded its authority. Congressional oversight is warranted.
Congress can also eliminate the per country limit for skilled immigrants, which pushes back wait times for Indian and Chinese professionals, exempt from green card quotas those who earn a master�s degree or higher, and increase the quotas for H-1B temporary visas.
While H.R. 5882 will not solve all our immigration problems, it represents an important effort to retain talented individuals in America so they can help create jobs and innovation in the United States.
Stuart Anderson is a former Staff Director of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and now Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan policy research group based in Arlington, Va.
No one is calling anymore?? Please call guys if you have not...Leave a voice message....but call
Make Immigration Work for Working Immigrants
http://townhall.com/Columnists/CesarConda/2008/09/09/make_immigration_work_for_working_immigrants
Employment-based immigrants contribute greatly to America, although you would not know it from the way current U.S. policy treats them. Due to low quotas, a typical skilled immigrant sponsored by an American company now waits 6 to 10 years for a green card (permanent residence). The House Judiciary Committee marks up legislation this week to change that, representing likely the only measure Congress may take in the remaining weeks to aid innovation, the economy and the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
H.R. 5882, authored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would reduce wait times for green cards and help retain talented people in the United States. It would do this by providing green cards that had been allotted in previous years but went unused, primarily due to bureaucratic obstacles.
�A developed country�s competitiveness now comes primarily from its capacity to innovate � the ability to create the new products and services that people want,� according to Curtis Carlson of the Silicon Valley research firm SRI International. Skilled immigrants are a vital source of America�s capacity to innovate.
The National Venture Capital Association reports that 1 in 4 publicly-trade companies that began with venture capital since 1990 had at least one immigrant founder. While the vast majority of employees at U.S. firms are Americans, when U.S. employers recruit on college campuses they find foreign nationals represent a high proportion of the graduates in key fields. In 2006, 73% of new electrical engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. were granted to international students, according to the National Science Foundation, while in 2005, foreign nationals received 55 percent of electrical engineering master�s degrees and 42 percent of computer science master�s degrees.
H-1B temporary visas, which have been exhausted each of the past 5 fiscal years, only allow individuals to stay on a temporary basis, so an employment-based green card is necessary to stay here permanently. The separate quota for green cards for skilled immigrants is set at 140,000 a year (including dependents of the skilled immigrant). That quota has also been insufficient to meet demand, creating waits of 6 to 10 years for a green card.
The great uncertainty these waits create lead some to give up and leave the United States and others to not even begin the process. The current long waits �cause a reverse brain drain affecting American competitiveness and innovation,� according to Aman Kapoor, executive director of the group Immigration Voice. �At the same time, these green card backlogs create severe quality of life issues for the applicants and their families.�
Those who understand markets realize that there is no such thing as a fixed number of jobs, as critics of high skill immigration maintain. A 2008 National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) study found that for every skilled foreign national requested (for H-1B visas) with the Department of Labor, U.S. technology companies increase their employment by 5 workers. Many U.S. executives confirm this experience at their firms. Looking to America�s next generation of scientists and engineers, a 2004 NFAP study found more than half of the finalists for the Intel Science Talent Search, the leading contest for top U.S. high school science students, were the children of skilled immigrants.
In addition to the reduced waiting times for green cards from H.R. 5882, Congress can take other steps. It can fix the labor certification process for skilled immigrants under which the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requires companies to engage in expensive and time-consuming advertisements to show no qualified Americans are available for certain jobs. Neither the law nor the original DOL regulations required such advertisements. Yet DOL is using its questionable authority to, among other things, audit thousands of green card cases from the nation�s largest immigration law firm, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. The Fragomen firm has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging DOL has exceeded its authority. Congressional oversight is warranted.
Congress can also eliminate the per country limit for skilled immigrants, which pushes back wait times for Indian and Chinese professionals, exempt from green card quotas those who earn a master�s degree or higher, and increase the quotas for H-1B temporary visas.
While H.R. 5882 will not solve all our immigration problems, it represents an important effort to retain talented individuals in America so they can help create jobs and innovation in the United States.
Stuart Anderson is a former Staff Director of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and now Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan policy research group based in Arlington, Va.
No one is calling anymore?? Please call guys if you have not...Leave a voice message....but call
gccovet
10-30 09:10 AM
done my part.
GCCovet.
GCCovet.
more...
speddi
08-12 07:13 PM
Today we received our welcome notices. The PD on my application is correct but the PD on my wife's application is same as the receipt date. Is this normal for the dependent application?
Our applications were approved based on substitute labor. Our 485 is based on 140 with PD Aug 2006 but we have another substitute labor with PD Nov 2005. When I applied for 140 with PD Aug 2006, I added my wife as dependent. But in the substitute labor I am not sure if my wife was added.
Is there anything to worry or just ignore it?
Thank you
Our applications were approved based on substitute labor. Our 485 is based on 140 with PD Aug 2006 but we have another substitute labor with PD Nov 2005. When I applied for 140 with PD Aug 2006, I added my wife as dependent. But in the substitute labor I am not sure if my wife was added.
Is there anything to worry or just ignore it?
Thank you
2010 dead goldfish cartoon.
foobar2001
09-08 08:58 PM
Thanks for your reply - but I looked at both email and they are exactly same except for approval date on them. that confused me :confused:
how long it's taking to get actual card in mail after getting production email/ status update?
yup - i got duplicate CPO emails as well - one on sep 1 and another on sep 2. The LUD date also changed from sep 1 to sep 2 after the 2 updates. Today i got the 485 approved email.
Dont have the GC in hand yet - looks like none of the folks who got current in Sep have received their GCs yet. Speaking to some folks who got current last month, it seems like most folks had GCs in hand within 10-15 days of the first status update regarding CPO.
how long it's taking to get actual card in mail after getting production email/ status update?
yup - i got duplicate CPO emails as well - one on sep 1 and another on sep 2. The LUD date also changed from sep 1 to sep 2 after the 2 updates. Today i got the 485 approved email.
Dont have the GC in hand yet - looks like none of the folks who got current in Sep have received their GCs yet. Speaking to some folks who got current last month, it seems like most folks had GCs in hand within 10-15 days of the first status update regarding CPO.
more...
rag1232
04-01 02:30 PM
My lawyer told me that dates may move to Jan 2007 for EB2I in May visa bulletin. Happy weekend!!!
hair How to Draw a Cartoon Goldfish
pappu
09-09 12:10 PM
Please post on other sites and your blogs so that we have more participation
more...
EndlessWait
08-07 10:41 AM
There is a difference between laws and regulations. Laws are what in INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act) and Regulations are what in CFR.
It takes congress and senate to change laws where as it takes discretion to change regulations. And the good news is that discretion can be challenged.
There is another thread on the issue and some of us think that we do have a case. Initial response from a certain lawyer has been positive.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20669
The affected parties (i.e. us) need to show damage in certain way and I do have some points that can be used. Our primary point is that the spirit of law has not been upheld.
Following are the steps in making this a reality:
a) Gather around 50 people
b) Develop and finalize draft of the case. Rolling_Flood has a initial draft.
c) Hold initial consultation with a lawyer.
d) Decide as a team if we want to continue.
e) File a class action suit
Not sure what is the total cost but given the years of wait and uncertainty $500 per person should be reasonable. I will also create a yahoo group to start these discussions.
Notes:
If you already have applied in EB2 you won't be affected.
If you have a Masters you won't be affected.
Its sad to see this policy is working. Divide on EB3/EB2 bases etc. We are fighting a common cause to eliminate employment based country quota system. I'm surprised that IV is allowing such threads to be posted. If it so, its a v sad day for IV.
It takes congress and senate to change laws where as it takes discretion to change regulations. And the good news is that discretion can be challenged.
There is another thread on the issue and some of us think that we do have a case. Initial response from a certain lawyer has been positive.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20669
The affected parties (i.e. us) need to show damage in certain way and I do have some points that can be used. Our primary point is that the spirit of law has not been upheld.
Following are the steps in making this a reality:
a) Gather around 50 people
b) Develop and finalize draft of the case. Rolling_Flood has a initial draft.
c) Hold initial consultation with a lawyer.
d) Decide as a team if we want to continue.
e) File a class action suit
Not sure what is the total cost but given the years of wait and uncertainty $500 per person should be reasonable. I will also create a yahoo group to start these discussions.
Notes:
If you already have applied in EB2 you won't be affected.
If you have a Masters you won't be affected.
Its sad to see this policy is working. Divide on EB3/EB2 bases etc. We are fighting a common cause to eliminate employment based country quota system. I'm surprised that IV is allowing such threads to be posted. If it so, its a v sad day for IV.
hot happy goldfish cartoon.
Desertfox
03-24 03:31 PM
-------------------------------------
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
-------------------------------------
It is illegal... On I-9 it clearly says that an employer can not deny employment because of an expiry date on a valid work authorization document. This makes sense, since the employer does not have any authority to check for this candidate's ability to renew the authorization, neither the candidate is obligated to share that information. Per DHS & DOL once you have valid EAD, you are good to go! I am curious though who should be responsible for educating these employers!:confused:
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
-------------------------------------
It is illegal... On I-9 it clearly says that an employer can not deny employment because of an expiry date on a valid work authorization document. This makes sense, since the employer does not have any authority to check for this candidate's ability to renew the authorization, neither the candidate is obligated to share that information. Per DHS & DOL once you have valid EAD, you are good to go! I am curious though who should be responsible for educating these employers!:confused:
more...
house Carton Fridge Goldfish
storm
08-13 07:09 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_AnnualReport_2006_II-F-Name_Checks.pdf
tattoo evil goldfish cartoon.
mallu
10-01 12:41 PM
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2007/09/27/green-card-recall-proposed-could-affect-two-million-permanent-residents.html
more...
pictures GOLDFISH by Flying Lotus.
NKR
08-07 01:15 PM
What stopped (from legal stand point) MBA guy to file for eb3 based GC in 2003? Remember both have BS in Engineering at that time. No employer was ready to file GC for the MBA guy (in 2003) is not a valid legal argument.
Exactly :).
If the MBA guy had told the employer that he is willing to take up an EB3 job, he would have gladly filed a GC.
I am expecting another red now
Exactly :).
If the MBA guy had told the employer that he is willing to take up an EB3 job, he would have gladly filed a GC.
I am expecting another red now
dresses dead goldfish cartoon.
sanju
05-15 10:24 AM
Guys:
Based on the June Bulletin, I will be filing my I485 in June.
Now, I have H1-B(with my current company till Feb'2010 that I just got approved a month back.(not stamped in passport yet)
-- Should I file EAD for myself ( I probably would want to change jobs after 180 days) ? Or is it better to be on H1-B.
-- Should I file AP for both myself and my wife(she is on H4) ?
Also, when I decide to change jobs using AC21 rule, is it better to tranfer
H1-B to a new company or if I have EAD, how does that work ?
Any inputs will be greatly appreciated..!!
Thanks
If I were you, I would apply for EAD and AP for spouse and self immediately. You never know when you may need it. Say, your company announces a merger and your entire department is wiped out and you have to leave before coming Friday. It would be almost impossible to find another employer who will send the new H-1B application before Friday. In such instances EAD will help to keep you in status. EAD card for spouse will allow her to apply for SSN and thus Drivers license. AP for wife will help to travel out of country after you have used EAD. So in short, I would apply for all the docs for all members of the family. This could result in spending couple of hundred dollars but will help secure peace of mind.
Based on the June Bulletin, I will be filing my I485 in June.
Now, I have H1-B(with my current company till Feb'2010 that I just got approved a month back.(not stamped in passport yet)
-- Should I file EAD for myself ( I probably would want to change jobs after 180 days) ? Or is it better to be on H1-B.
-- Should I file AP for both myself and my wife(she is on H4) ?
Also, when I decide to change jobs using AC21 rule, is it better to tranfer
H1-B to a new company or if I have EAD, how does that work ?
Any inputs will be greatly appreciated..!!
Thanks
If I were you, I would apply for EAD and AP for spouse and self immediately. You never know when you may need it. Say, your company announces a merger and your entire department is wiped out and you have to leave before coming Friday. It would be almost impossible to find another employer who will send the new H-1B application before Friday. In such instances EAD will help to keep you in status. EAD card for spouse will allow her to apply for SSN and thus Drivers license. AP for wife will help to travel out of country after you have used EAD. So in short, I would apply for all the docs for all members of the family. This could result in spending couple of hundred dollars but will help secure peace of mind.
more...
makeup Goldfish cartoon - Stock
kumar1
08-20 04:50 PM
Not long ago, I used to get internet through phone line (Dial up connection). Now I get phone through internet. Isn't it amazing?
By the way, I have been using Vonage for 5 years now and it is a great company.
By the way, I have been using Vonage for 5 years now and it is a great company.
girlfriend goldfish, cartoon, fish
SunnySurya
08-07 11:01 AM
I am the later...
Many of us are prone to extreme selfishness. You could be a numberusa guy or really frustrated EB applicant.
Many of us are prone to extreme selfishness. You could be a numberusa guy or really frustrated EB applicant.
hairstyles dead goldfish cartoon.
amitjoey
07-09 07:00 PM
I am telling you, this is all great!!. It is working, do not doubt it. It has to be this way for a news story. This makes a great story. Also canceling orders sends wrong messages, we care for the troops fighting for us, Why cancel.
ss_col
06-18 12:02 AM
Hi everyone,
I have 2004 W2 but cant seem to find my tax return. I have 2003, 2005, 2006tax returns but not 2004. What can I do to get that return. Please any advice will be nice.
Thanks
I have 2004 W2 but cant seem to find my tax return. I have 2003, 2005, 2006tax returns but not 2004. What can I do to get that return. Please any advice will be nice.
Thanks
dontcareanymore
08-20 02:57 PM
Yes, there is one year agreement.
One additional year of contract for changing to world plan ? I already have 24.99 plan.
One additional year of contract for changing to world plan ? I already have 24.99 plan.