glus
11-18 08:42 AM
email sent.
wallpaper Map of Denmark
akhilmahajan
04-23 11:38 AM
My understanding is after 180 days of 485 filing, even if the employer revokes the approved 140, the 485 application does not get affected if you apply AC21 and let USCIS know that you have changed employment and the job duties are similar. Is it true? or is there is any risk if employer revokes 140?
As per the Yates memo, we are covered once 180 days have passed since filing 485.
If the employer revokes 140, then USCIS will issue a RFE, most probably NOID on your 485. AC-21 papers filed or not, its up to the officer who is handling your case. Even if you sent the AC-21 papers, he/she still can issue a NOID.
Then it will up to you to prove that changing jobs was with in rules. A lot of people do it and get GC's. Its a common practice and is now becoming more visible.
So, just be cautious with the job change and make sure your job responsibilties are as close as mentioned on the labor.
I hope it helps.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
As per the Yates memo, we are covered once 180 days have passed since filing 485.
If the employer revokes 140, then USCIS will issue a RFE, most probably NOID on your 485. AC-21 papers filed or not, its up to the officer who is handling your case. Even if you sent the AC-21 papers, he/she still can issue a NOID.
Then it will up to you to prove that changing jobs was with in rules. A lot of people do it and get GC's. Its a common practice and is now becoming more visible.
So, just be cautious with the job change and make sure your job responsibilties are as close as mentioned on the labor.
I hope it helps.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
the_googly
08-20 02:17 PM
PD: 03 '05
ND: Jun 26 '08
Card production ordered on August 18, 2008
ND: Jun 26 '08
Card production ordered on August 18, 2008
2011 via Germany and Denmark,
NKR
04-24 08:11 AM
What wrong he did? Nothing illegal but certainly not the best practise. Atleast he has been insensitive to his former employer.
You have got all things reversed.
Most of the H1B guys have families, they have kids that they need to support, most of them are single income families because of green card delays and we need money to visit our home countries atleast once every 3 years when each ticket cost 1.5K $ and this employer keeps 4k which is not his, so who is insensitive and whose practice is best?.
Most consulting companies run by desis who do not want the company to grow big. They want to keep it small by hiring a handful of H1B guys and keep sc****ng them..
It has to be a win-win situation for both, especially when the employee finds his own project and has been doing a bit for the company, this needs to be reciprocated. If someone opens a company he cannot expect somebody to be working for him for-ever. If the employee wants to leave him after a couple of years, making his exit difficult is unprofessional, unethical and downright cheap.
You have got all things reversed.
Most of the H1B guys have families, they have kids that they need to support, most of them are single income families because of green card delays and we need money to visit our home countries atleast once every 3 years when each ticket cost 1.5K $ and this employer keeps 4k which is not his, so who is insensitive and whose practice is best?.
Most consulting companies run by desis who do not want the company to grow big. They want to keep it small by hiring a handful of H1B guys and keep sc****ng them..
It has to be a win-win situation for both, especially when the employee finds his own project and has been doing a bit for the company, this needs to be reciprocated. If someone opens a company he cannot expect somebody to be working for him for-ever. If the employee wants to leave him after a couple of years, making his exit difficult is unprofessional, unethical and downright cheap.
more...
chanduv23
07-09 03:34 PM
Two things
1. Consultant can be part of job title and/or duties. Key thing is that job must be permanent and full-time.
2. PERM can only be filed for job that are permanent and full time.
.
I have talked to few people who do self employment. This is what they have to say.
"As long as the job duties are same or similar, it is fine",
"You must be a W2 employee of your firm"
"The key is constant business and income - which can be proved via paystubs and/or contracts - in case it is requested for"
I am also trying to do some research on this.
A lot of people do go for self employment so no need to be scared as long as the employment is legitimate.
1. Consultant can be part of job title and/or duties. Key thing is that job must be permanent and full-time.
2. PERM can only be filed for job that are permanent and full time.
.
I have talked to few people who do self employment. This is what they have to say.
"As long as the job duties are same or similar, it is fine",
"You must be a W2 employee of your firm"
"The key is constant business and income - which can be proved via paystubs and/or contracts - in case it is requested for"
I am also trying to do some research on this.
A lot of people do go for self employment so no need to be scared as long as the employment is legitimate.
sweet_jungle
11-06 04:16 PM
just sent e-mail to ombudsman. I would encourage all of you to send e-mail regarding FP delay. it did help in getting receipt notices. Please do it for FP also.
dingudi,
I tend to disagree from you on your comment regarding a possible link between name check and FP. I think they are seperate processes and run in parallel - one does not depend on another. I've read somewhere that a guy's name check was initiated like a month before he went for his FP. He got that info from infopass appointment. Also, wouldn't the IOs mention about the pending name check if it was related to FP notice?
Regarding reaching a non TSC IO, I think is impossible since the call gets directed to TSC or NSC based on the receipt number that you key in when you call.
I agree with you that we'll end up getting the same damn letter as our friend about no appointment availabality at local ASC for our SR response. It seems to me that we have to try either the Infopass or just wait it out.
Has anyone thought about writing to ombdusman (if I spelled it correctly) about this FP notice issue or will that be not worth it?
dingudi,
I tend to disagree from you on your comment regarding a possible link between name check and FP. I think they are seperate processes and run in parallel - one does not depend on another. I've read somewhere that a guy's name check was initiated like a month before he went for his FP. He got that info from infopass appointment. Also, wouldn't the IOs mention about the pending name check if it was related to FP notice?
Regarding reaching a non TSC IO, I think is impossible since the call gets directed to TSC or NSC based on the receipt number that you key in when you call.
I agree with you that we'll end up getting the same damn letter as our friend about no appointment availabality at local ASC for our SR response. It seems to me that we have to try either the Infopass or just wait it out.
Has anyone thought about writing to ombdusman (if I spelled it correctly) about this FP notice issue or will that be not worth it?
more...
vkallank
07-20 08:31 AM
I pledge $250 towards this fund.
i have been a active member for quite some time but i wasnt aware of the financial sacrifices IV Core team was making until I read the businessweek article. i have been contributing monthly recurring payments and one time contributions as and when necessary.
Thanks to whoever started this topic to refund some of the expenses core team has met. Thanks to IV core team for their unselfish acts and sacrifices.
i shall see if i can contribute more in the near future to this fund.
i have been a active member for quite some time but i wasnt aware of the financial sacrifices IV Core team was making until I read the businessweek article. i have been contributing monthly recurring payments and one time contributions as and when necessary.
Thanks to whoever started this topic to refund some of the expenses core team has met. Thanks to IV core team for their unselfish acts and sacrifices.
i shall see if i can contribute more in the near future to this fund.
2010 Detailed map shows Kingdoms,
h1techSlave
03-28 11:16 AM
You have predicted that EB3-India cut of date would become June 2003. But your PD is July 2003. Usually people do not predict that way. They predict their own PD would become current pretty soon.:D
At one end it is bad that USCIS moved back Nebraska Processing date to June 08 2007 (More than one month backword) but it looks like USCIS is preparing itself to kick EB3-India ahead... It is too early to say this confidently.. But my feeling is that USCIS will keep processing dates tied to June 2007 and will kick EB3-India ahead. I am keeping my fingers crossed. Though as per murthy's web site in May bulletin EB3-India dates will remain same, I am feeling that if my guess is correct then at least from June bulletin we will see 2 patterns 1) Nebraka processing date would not move ahead for some months or will
move ahead very slowly from June 08 2007
2) Eb3-India PD dates will move ahead speedily. To me it looks like USCIS is now prepared to kick EB3-I (Till June 2003 PD) lot out.
At one end it is bad that USCIS moved back Nebraska Processing date to June 08 2007 (More than one month backword) but it looks like USCIS is preparing itself to kick EB3-India ahead... It is too early to say this confidently.. But my feeling is that USCIS will keep processing dates tied to June 2007 and will kick EB3-India ahead. I am keeping my fingers crossed. Though as per murthy's web site in May bulletin EB3-India dates will remain same, I am feeling that if my guess is correct then at least from June bulletin we will see 2 patterns 1) Nebraka processing date would not move ahead for some months or will
move ahead very slowly from June 08 2007
2) Eb3-India PD dates will move ahead speedily. To me it looks like USCIS is now prepared to kick EB3-I (Till June 2003 PD) lot out.
more...
stemcell
02-01 01:05 PM
[QUOTE=IfYouSeekAmy;2305591]:D
2012??? - According to the Mayan calendar the 2012 will bring the doomsday !!!! :D[/QUOT
Well at least we have some kind of deadline then :)
2012??? - According to the Mayan calendar the 2012 will bring the doomsday !!!! :D[/QUOT
Well at least we have some kind of deadline then :)
hair german map gazetteer and
kris04
09-05 10:34 AM
Dear Friends,
My GC was approved on Aug.19, 2008 and received my Physical card on Aug. 22, 2008 :):). I am wondering what to do with the I 94 , which I received after my last re-entry to USA in 2006 using AP. Any info.
regards
kris
My GC was approved on Aug.19, 2008 and received my Physical card on Aug. 22, 2008 :):). I am wondering what to do with the I 94 , which I received after my last re-entry to USA in 2006 using AP. Any info.
regards
kris
more...
walking_dude
10-08 02:31 PM
Please donate $5000 to IV and they'll make it their top-most agenda
/sarcasm off
Action item for IV, besides visa recapturing etc. Its one of the items they
should add to there agenda.
/sarcasm off
Action item for IV, besides visa recapturing etc. Its one of the items they
should add to there agenda.
hot Map of europe
rdehar
10-08 02:37 PM
I applied for the first time in 2001, and then in 2005 (due to relocation) and ended up at the backlog center. Another relocation and now my PD is March 2007, and these recent wannabes want Perm approved in 1 month, I-140 premium processing in few days and then onto I-485 which should be current with no retrogression. Amen !! When do you want the USCIS to bend over for you?
Very well said.
Can't stop laughing.
Very well said.
Can't stop laughing.
more...
house Denmark, France, Germany,
minimalist
07-27 12:16 AM
1. When IV sucessfully reversed USCIS decisions last July
2. Two year EAD's.
Recapture would have solved the above problems automatically to
EB3 I issue being debated now is something we wish we could have but has not much logical ground,in my understanding. July issue is to do with flip flop of USCIS. IV didn't protest to make all current. Just made them not retract what USCIS/DOS said a month back.
2 year EAD is also for the whole community including future filers.
Clarify one thing for me. How this new rule that is helping EB2-I is impacting EB3-I. Based on what I understand, EB3 World is directly impacted by this change. Can you help me understand how EB3 -I is impacted?
2. Two year EAD's.
Recapture would have solved the above problems automatically to
EB3 I issue being debated now is something we wish we could have but has not much logical ground,in my understanding. July issue is to do with flip flop of USCIS. IV didn't protest to make all current. Just made them not retract what USCIS/DOS said a month back.
2 year EAD is also for the whole community including future filers.
Clarify one thing for me. How this new rule that is helping EB2-I is impacting EB3-I. Based on what I understand, EB3 World is directly impacted by this change. Can you help me understand how EB3 -I is impacted?
tattoo Wall Map of montenegro
quiquincho
03-06 06:22 PM
You wouldn't have felt that way if you were EB-3 India sittinig for last 8 years, reading Visa Bulletins every months, just to find it still in Oct'2001...And if you ask USCIS what's going on they ask you 5K.
I don't think you can tell if I had felt that way, the same way I cannot tell how you feel, but I understand your pain to some extent - I have been waiting for 2 years and probably have to wait a few more. All I am saying is that the country cap policy is not a form of discrimination.:)
I don't think you can tell if I had felt that way, the same way I cannot tell how you feel, but I understand your pain to some extent - I have been waiting for 2 years and probably have to wait a few more. All I am saying is that the country cap policy is not a form of discrimination.:)
more...
pictures Join together: The map shows
kondur_007
07-28 02:08 PM
As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, I am now posting information that explains why this "horizontal" spill occurred and no amount of campaign will reverse it (other than change in law).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
dresses Germany holland denmark maps
abq_gc
08-18 01:23 PM
Security background should not be an issue more... It is pathetic that folks with PD 2002 are still waiting... You guys are silently sufferiing , it is time that you remain silent no more.
I am with Sunny... we have to do something.... and something before this year ends... who knows what the heck will happen once OCT comes... this window is critical..
I am with Sunny... we have to do something.... and something before this year ends... who knows what the heck will happen once OCT comes... this window is critical..
more...
makeup MAP BERLIN 1972 GERMANY
i4u
09-28 08:39 AM
CO's words have been mostly pessimistic..and upsetting so far...
This is nothing new!
This is nothing new!
girlfriend Map of Europe
aachoo
05-09 11:22 PM
A suggestion about the contents of these emails/letters:
Why do we insist on proposing the solution to our problems? One person wants to remove country limits, another wants 5 year EADs, yet another wants to file 485 regardless of priority dates.
I see 2 problems with this:
1- The external world doesn't care or understand. Do you think the average CNN viewer understands what retrogression or priority dates are? For that matter does anyone in the White House?
2- This divides us by EB category, country, pre/post July '07, EB3 to EB2 porter etc.
In your letters please focus on the problem. If invited to the table we can propose solutions, but now is the time to highlight the problems and the potential impact it has on the US economy, our families, and communities.
Examples:
Impact on US economy:
- I have significant buying power, however I am unable to make any substantial longer term financial decisions due to immigration uncertainties. I may be asked to leave the country on a moment's notice. If there was some stability, I may be looking to invest in a home or a new business
Impact on our families:
- My spouse cannot work. She is qualified and capable. Yet due to the vagaries of the immigration system, she cannot pursue full time employment without significant additional paperwork
Impact on the communities:
- Most of us hold strong political and social views. The current system makes it untenable and in some cases illegal (like donating to political parties) to participate in the democratic process. In the grand machine that is the American democratic system, we are probably the only group of people that are taxed and yet have no representation whatsoever.
Maybe these points are not strong enough. But if they are not, then it is not worth anyone's time to pay any attention. Find the legal immigrant population's "we do the jobs Americans will not do" slogan!
-a
Why do we insist on proposing the solution to our problems? One person wants to remove country limits, another wants 5 year EADs, yet another wants to file 485 regardless of priority dates.
I see 2 problems with this:
1- The external world doesn't care or understand. Do you think the average CNN viewer understands what retrogression or priority dates are? For that matter does anyone in the White House?
2- This divides us by EB category, country, pre/post July '07, EB3 to EB2 porter etc.
In your letters please focus on the problem. If invited to the table we can propose solutions, but now is the time to highlight the problems and the potential impact it has on the US economy, our families, and communities.
Examples:
Impact on US economy:
- I have significant buying power, however I am unable to make any substantial longer term financial decisions due to immigration uncertainties. I may be asked to leave the country on a moment's notice. If there was some stability, I may be looking to invest in a home or a new business
Impact on our families:
- My spouse cannot work. She is qualified and capable. Yet due to the vagaries of the immigration system, she cannot pursue full time employment without significant additional paperwork
Impact on the communities:
- Most of us hold strong political and social views. The current system makes it untenable and in some cases illegal (like donating to political parties) to participate in the democratic process. In the grand machine that is the American democratic system, we are probably the only group of people that are taxed and yet have no representation whatsoever.
Maybe these points are not strong enough. But if they are not, then it is not worth anyone's time to pay any attention. Find the legal immigrant population's "we do the jobs Americans will not do" slogan!
-a
hairstyles Eurail Denmark-Germany Pass
raghav0
02-16 08:16 AM
$50 - Hopefully more in the coming days. Not sure if I can make it to DC.....Thanks for effort!!
Rohan99
10-11 05:01 PM
I think it can not be true. I strongly believe in stats look around you and see how many have not received receipt, you will find very few numbers. In my office everyone has got receipt and my friends too. I am the only unlucky person. This sample is truly random hence I believe it. Out of 15 friends I know (work for different company and filed on different date) only I am left. Whatever immigartion-law or anyone is reporting like this is wrong.
It is painful to wait like this and I am frustrated.. hope next week brings some good news...
July VB Fiasco I-485 Receipting Delays
The USCIS has yet to release the detailed progress report on the receipting delays in terms of the numbers that have yet to be processed for receipting. The only thing people know through various private websites just indicates that there are a plenty of people who are still waiting for filing fee checks cashed or receipt notices received for the cases which were filed as early as July 2, 2007, not to mention any later cases.
We reported earlier that the USCIS had allegedly received total of 800,000 cases for the July VB fiasco cases. There is an unconfirmed report that they have completed the receipting only half way through of the total, meaning approximately 400,000. There are no sources of information to verify or confirm the figures. However, if it is correct, the USCIS has yet to process mountains of receipting workloads ahead and the filers have some additional sleepless nights which they will have to endure for a while. AMEN!
It is painful to wait like this and I am frustrated.. hope next week brings some good news...
July VB Fiasco I-485 Receipting Delays
The USCIS has yet to release the detailed progress report on the receipting delays in terms of the numbers that have yet to be processed for receipting. The only thing people know through various private websites just indicates that there are a plenty of people who are still waiting for filing fee checks cashed or receipt notices received for the cases which were filed as early as July 2, 2007, not to mention any later cases.
We reported earlier that the USCIS had allegedly received total of 800,000 cases for the July VB fiasco cases. There is an unconfirmed report that they have completed the receipting only half way through of the total, meaning approximately 400,000. There are no sources of information to verify or confirm the figures. However, if it is correct, the USCIS has yet to process mountains of receipting workloads ahead and the filers have some additional sleepless nights which they will have to endure for a while. AMEN!
desi3933
07-10 02:25 PM
@desi3933:
On the other hand, I-140 is linked to Permanent Labor Certification (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/perm.cfm) (aka GC labor)
"Permanent Labor Certification" does not mean the job has to be "permanent" (you're again *assuming*, no?) It could also mean LC for "permanent" residency!
Looks like you missed this on that link:
The job opportunity must be for a full time, permanent position.
There must be a bona fide job opening available to U.S. workers.
Job requirements must adhere to what is customarily required for the occupation in the U.S. and may not be tailored to the foreign worker's qualifications. The employer must pay at least the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment.
On the other hand, I-140 is linked to Permanent Labor Certification (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/perm.cfm) (aka GC labor)
"Permanent Labor Certification" does not mean the job has to be "permanent" (you're again *assuming*, no?) It could also mean LC for "permanent" residency!
Looks like you missed this on that link:
The job opportunity must be for a full time, permanent position.
There must be a bona fide job opening available to U.S. workers.
Job requirements must adhere to what is customarily required for the occupation in the U.S. and may not be tailored to the foreign worker's qualifications. The employer must pay at least the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment