txh1b
05-06 11:51 PM
No one can enter your property without your permission or consent unless they have a warrant. The officer has to ask you if they can come in and you might have said yes and hence the result. You could very well say no and walk outside the door to talk to them.
Some PDs have educational videos to the police officers. A good example and a must watch link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkaMUp_JqIE
Some PDs have educational videos to the police officers. A good example and a must watch link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkaMUp_JqIE
wallpaper Ansar Abbasi has been
quizzer
11-01 05:39 PM
Hello,
I'm trying to see the list of people who applied EB2 at NSC in 2006 and still waiting for updates/result.
Please keep updating this thread with ur dates and updates like if any SR was raised, any LUD's after ND etc.
Mine RD is Dec 11 2006...no updates till now.SR was raised on 20th oct 2007.
We will try to track if people get updates after posting here.
Thanks
I'm trying to see the list of people who applied EB2 at NSC in 2006 and still waiting for updates/result.
Please keep updating this thread with ur dates and updates like if any SR was raised, any LUD's after ND etc.
Mine RD is Dec 11 2006...no updates till now.SR was raised on 20th oct 2007.
We will try to track if people get updates after posting here.
Thanks
neverbefore
06-30 02:05 AM
I have used AC21 replied to all the RFEs about it. Laast year my attorney delayed renewal of my EAD and immediately 485 petition started moving and landed in National benefits Center for scheduling an interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
2011 ANSAR ABBASI EXPOSES NAWAZ
leoindiano
03-17 12:35 PM
I have a priority date of March 2004 (EB2 India) and I am still waiting for my Green Card. I think majority of the 2004 filers are in the same boat except for a lucky few who were able to get the green card after the July fiasco.
So don't buildup your hopes too high. I firmly beleive that very soon there will be a repeat of what we saw last year in July and the green cards will be distributed once again out of order.
So if you are one of those luck ones, you might get it.
Good Luck!!
You must have applied for I-485 after july 1st, correct?
So don't buildup your hopes too high. I firmly beleive that very soon there will be a repeat of what we saw last year in July and the green cards will be distributed once again out of order.
So if you are one of those luck ones, you might get it.
Good Luck!!
You must have applied for I-485 after july 1st, correct?
more...
drirshad
07-29 06:50 AM
old pork chops arn't gonna get any good ideas so better show some courtesy ......
komaragiri
08-01 01:16 PM
As soon the 2008 quota opens on October 1st, they will process the current limit within a month and starting from November they can post "U" every category until Sep 15th, 2008.
They can enjoy Christmas holidays peacefully.
They can enjoy Christmas holidays peacefully.
more...
kprgroup
08-10 09:02 AM
Good Morning,
I went to the uscis local office. The officer told my case SRC-****7236 (765) Renewal was denied on 06/25/2010. He didn’t have the denial details. He told he will send an email to Texas USCIS asking the details. He also told my 485 motion approved and my recent travel document approved but strange that they denied EAD.
Unfortunately we (Myself & Lawyer) never received a denial notice.
My EAD is expiring sep 3rd. I know mostly they denied by without seeing my 485 motion approval.I am requesting denial notice by opening SR
Help me and suggest to overcome this SITUATION (Another wrong denial by USCIS.)
Thanks
KPR
-----------------
Background OF Myself
----------------------
1)Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
2)Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
3)September 2008 I have Joined employer “B” by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
4)Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denials in October 2008.
5)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
I went to the uscis local office. The officer told my case SRC-****7236 (765) Renewal was denied on 06/25/2010. He didn’t have the denial details. He told he will send an email to Texas USCIS asking the details. He also told my 485 motion approved and my recent travel document approved but strange that they denied EAD.
Unfortunately we (Myself & Lawyer) never received a denial notice.
My EAD is expiring sep 3rd. I know mostly they denied by without seeing my 485 motion approval.I am requesting denial notice by opening SR
Help me and suggest to overcome this SITUATION (Another wrong denial by USCIS.)
Thanks
KPR
-----------------
Background OF Myself
----------------------
1)Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
2)Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
3)September 2008 I have Joined employer “B” by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
4)Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denials in October 2008.
5)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
2010 Ansar Abbasi backing Qabza
mammoy2k
11-13 08:04 AM
I would appreciate if any of you could shed light on the following scenario:
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
02-01 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)
hair Ansar Abbasi: Nawaz Sharif
anurakt
01-21 02:12 PM
I joined Immigration voice on orkut. My name is Chandrakanth
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
more...
TheCanadian
11-26 12:58 AM
Yours is sweet by the way.
hot Tags: Ansar Abbasi
vinnysuru
04-01 10:10 AM
Hello Everyone -
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
Hi Piyu, Wow you are lucky. I am from India EB2 (Jan 2006 PD). Non Concurrent with approved 140 Filed 485 on 25th July 07. FP in Sep 07. Haven't heard a word since then. I called NSC last week and they said my name check is pending. Derivative cleared. They have moved processing dates back to June 8th, so they don't expect my case to assigned to an officer for review at least for 2-3 months.
Would you mind sharing specifics of your case?
1. What was your exact PD (Day?)
2. Which service center did you file with?
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW?
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country?
Good luck! Yes, now you would just have to wait for PD to become current and you will get approval. Check . Lots of approvals in last 2 weeks for people in similar situations! More in come this month as PD's move forward today.
I am Happy for you! Gives all of us hope.
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
Hi Piyu, Wow you are lucky. I am from India EB2 (Jan 2006 PD). Non Concurrent with approved 140 Filed 485 on 25th July 07. FP in Sep 07. Haven't heard a word since then. I called NSC last week and they said my name check is pending. Derivative cleared. They have moved processing dates back to June 8th, so they don't expect my case to assigned to an officer for review at least for 2-3 months.
Would you mind sharing specifics of your case?
1. What was your exact PD (Day?)
2. Which service center did you file with?
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW?
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country?
Good luck! Yes, now you would just have to wait for PD to become current and you will get approval. Check . Lots of approvals in last 2 weeks for people in similar situations! More in come this month as PD's move forward today.
I am Happy for you! Gives all of us hope.
more...
house Ansar Abbasi appeared on
hopefulgc
08-30 07:36 AM
Not illegal if you are also present in the recording.
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
tattoo By Ansar Abbasi
kittu1991
02-27 02:05 PM
In fiscal year 2006, there were 5 Indian firms in the top 10 users of H1B visa.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/15273
However, when it comes to PERM filing there is only 1 Indian company in the top 10 list of PERM filers. That is very interesting. Does it mean that Indian companies do not encourage or support GC process as much as the American companies do? I sure hope that's not the case and employees of those Indian companies are getting a fare shot at the Greencard.
The Inidian firms use H1B for short term assingments of 2 to 3 yrs. And now a days Greencard is not an attractive carrot for Indian SW engineers.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/15273
However, when it comes to PERM filing there is only 1 Indian company in the top 10 list of PERM filers. That is very interesting. Does it mean that Indian companies do not encourage or support GC process as much as the American companies do? I sure hope that's not the case and employees of those Indian companies are getting a fare shot at the Greencard.
The Inidian firms use H1B for short term assingments of 2 to 3 yrs. And now a days Greencard is not an attractive carrot for Indian SW engineers.
more...
pictures Ansar Abbasi ·
santb1975
02-15 10:28 PM
^^^
dresses Wahid Khurta~ Ansar Abbasi
ramus
06-20 01:11 PM
I would suggest to go with EAD and AP for spouse as its better then H1B.
You don't have to stick one employee if spouse has EAD and she doesn't need to find job in perticular field if she has EAD...
But for you, I would say just use H1B as long as you can.
You should put the status on the day you are filing, so if you are filing before she gets on H-1, her status would be H-4.
Question: Why do need to have an AP filed? Is it just to avoid the hassle of stamping?
Just getting an AP approved has nothing to do with the H-1 status. But if you use the AP to enter into US, there is a grey area if the H-1 is still valid or not. If you have an option try to keep her on H-1 and not use the AP, this will make sure that he has a valid work status even if the 485 gets rejected.
You don't have to stick one employee if spouse has EAD and she doesn't need to find job in perticular field if she has EAD...
But for you, I would say just use H1B as long as you can.
You should put the status on the day you are filing, so if you are filing before she gets on H-1, her status would be H-4.
Question: Why do need to have an AP filed? Is it just to avoid the hassle of stamping?
Just getting an AP approved has nothing to do with the H-1 status. But if you use the AP to enter into US, there is a grey area if the H-1 is still valid or not. If you have an option try to keep her on H-1 and not use the AP, this will make sure that he has a valid work status even if the 485 gets rejected.
more...
makeup abdulhameed dogar
RamBharose
03-13 06:34 PM
hey kris
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
girlfriend to Ansar Abbasi#39;s article
Suva
04-17 02:43 PM
hey dude there's nothing in the url u posted once go to the website and click the the pressure list url.that is the actual Noc codes that are active.Today morning when i spoke to the immigraton officer in alberta he was the one who told me ok.
It was mentioned last month in the AINP website that some changes would be there in the NOC list after April 15. Everybody whoever followed this thread saw the message earlier. On April 15 they removed the message from AINP website and apparantly there was no change in NOC list till now. OP gave us correct information when he/she created this thread. See my post in April 15 in this thread and I mentioned that nothing was changed in NOC list. Again going back to my original question did you follow this thread from start? I objected to this comment "I donno why people place messages with Half Knowledge". Apparantly you had the half knowlodge about this whole issue.
It was mentioned last month in the AINP website that some changes would be there in the NOC list after April 15. Everybody whoever followed this thread saw the message earlier. On April 15 they removed the message from AINP website and apparantly there was no change in NOC list till now. OP gave us correct information when he/she created this thread. See my post in April 15 in this thread and I mentioned that nothing was changed in NOC list. Again going back to my original question did you follow this thread from start? I objected to this comment "I donno why people place messages with Half Knowledge". Apparantly you had the half knowlodge about this whole issue.
hairstyles Sahib Jago~ Ansar Abbasi
zerozerozeven
04-10 03:29 PM
163,000 applns for general and more than 31,200 applns for advanced degree.
arjun007
02-07 10:17 PM
No .. I did not submit my i-94 while leaving for Canada...
pmat
04-10 04:32 PM
I don't get what caused the sudden spike in the Master's quota. Earlier it used to be open for at least 15 days... Can it be because of increase in number of international students or people loosing in previous year lotteries going for Masters??? I seriously believe that H1B visa program needs reform - a valid job offer (read project for consultancies) must be necessary for applying AND a joining date within 2 months of starting FY. This is true madness going on.
No comments:
Post a Comment