TheOmbudsman
10-30 11:53 AM
Honorable Senior members:
Why my posts appear with a red dot ? Can I respectfully request the removal of such red dot ? Instead please assign me a green dot like all other members.
Thanks,
The Ombudsman
Why my posts appear with a red dot ? Can I respectfully request the removal of such red dot ? Instead please assign me a green dot like all other members.
Thanks,
The Ombudsman
wallpaper new Black Ops zombie map,
willwin
07-28 11:33 AM
1) You are "a highly educated (for those that care) Executive that went to Top Private Universities in the US"
2) You built a billion dollar corporation
3) You are threatening to have all EB2 applications audited if your point of view is not accepted by someone
You need help. Go see a shrink.
I dont think he 'threatened' EB2. He challenged. But if you were frightened, it is not his problem. who should go where?!
2) You built a billion dollar corporation
3) You are threatening to have all EB2 applications audited if your point of view is not accepted by someone
You need help. Go see a shrink.
I dont think he 'threatened' EB2. He challenged. But if you were frightened, it is not his problem. who should go where?!
belmontboy
07-20 02:43 PM
Guys, Please don't fight.
We cannot get far with this EB2 Vs EB3 fight.
We understand EB3's situation, however pitting one against another will not help.
Sanhari: why not take your efforts one step ahead and work for fixes like visa recapture. That would be permanent solution and doesnot favor any particular group. You will be able to get support of EB2 and EB1 folks.
I know IV core is focusing its efforts on CIR. CIR is dead meat or going to be... considering this, is IV core working on any piecemeal reforms? Can somebody from the IV core comment????
We cannot get far with this EB2 Vs EB3 fight.
We understand EB3's situation, however pitting one against another will not help.
Sanhari: why not take your efforts one step ahead and work for fixes like visa recapture. That would be permanent solution and doesnot favor any particular group. You will be able to get support of EB2 and EB1 folks.
I know IV core is focusing its efforts on CIR. CIR is dead meat or going to be... considering this, is IV core working on any piecemeal reforms? Can somebody from the IV core comment????
2011 This map pack will contain
neel_gump
07-21 04:44 PM
We, people with EB3-I priority dates in 2002 2003 2004, should not blame others for our problem. The only way out of this mess for us, I think, is to port from EB3 to EB2. We all need to do it before they scrap that law. We are being too loyal to our original employers. Most of us were working for more than 8 years in the same company. It is time to move-on and search for greener pastures. We checked that there are around 20,000 EB3-I applications in front of us. That, @ 3000 applications per year, means more than 6 years of agonizing wait. We are already waiting for 8 years and I don't know whether we can take 6 more. I think only a mass-porting from EB3 to EB2 should be the answer.
more...
walking_dude
10-08 04:57 PM
gjoe/and others,
No one's trying to cut the line here. If there's any, it's purely procedural and has nothing to do with 'Ending Retrogression'. With or without retrogression someone might get an RFE, get stuck in namecheck etc. Ending retrogression provides earlier PDs better chances of getting GC faster (if dates are 'C' you get it the month you clear RFE, Name check etc.)
Just posting here isn't helping you cause. Instead you guys can get together and start sending flowers to USCIS director requesting him to publish the complete list of GC applications approved every year. It's the first step in enforcing FIFO. Right now there is no such list and no way of knowing who got their GC out of turn. And while you guys are at it also send some flowers to FBI to clear Namechecks FIFO, to DOL to approve PERM petitions FIFO etc.
Go spend those $50 at Flowers.com folks. Start writing to Senators, collect money, do the lobbying etc. Who's stopping you?
Or do you want logiclife, pappu and rest of the IV core to do it PRO BONO for you?
No one's trying to cut the line here. If there's any, it's purely procedural and has nothing to do with 'Ending Retrogression'. With or without retrogression someone might get an RFE, get stuck in namecheck etc. Ending retrogression provides earlier PDs better chances of getting GC faster (if dates are 'C' you get it the month you clear RFE, Name check etc.)
Just posting here isn't helping you cause. Instead you guys can get together and start sending flowers to USCIS director requesting him to publish the complete list of GC applications approved every year. It's the first step in enforcing FIFO. Right now there is no such list and no way of knowing who got their GC out of turn. And while you guys are at it also send some flowers to FBI to clear Namechecks FIFO, to DOL to approve PERM petitions FIFO etc.
Go spend those $50 at Flowers.com folks. Start writing to Senators, collect money, do the lobbying etc. Who's stopping you?
Or do you want logiclife, pappu and rest of the IV core to do it PRO BONO for you?
bp333
11-19 12:53 PM
Done
more...
gcsomeday
07-20 10:54 AM
I dont think the admin will make this sticky or put permanently on the home page.
All, who ever is online at any time please bump this up frequently if it is not in the top 5 on home page.
^^^^^^^
All, who ever is online at any time please bump this up frequently if it is not in the top 5 on home page.
^^^^^^^
2010 The map is of a medium size
desi3933
06-28 06:46 AM
desi3933,
Here is the part of the law that says a job aspirant should not be discriminated by his/her immigration status as long as he/she has a valid work permit( H1B/GC/EAD/Citizenship).
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --
The only individual that can be discriminated against is an unauthorized alien. H1B/GC/EAD/Citizen does not fall in this category.
Thanks for your reply.
H-1B visa holder is not authorized alien to work for any employer. Employer can not be asked to provide H-1B sponsorship.
Infact H-1B worker has lot of restrictions related to his work. H1-B worker has to work only in his job location and pay range as specified in LCA. Any significant changes in job location, job duties, and/or salary requires LCA and H-1B petition amendment. H-1B worker is out of status when out of job for any reason. EAD holders, OPT are immigrants, who are not permanent resident, but they do not have such restrictions. And, thats why, they are authorized alien to work for any employer. (Hint: SSN card for H-1B holder has line - work with USCIS authorization only whereas GC/EAD holder does not have that line on their SSN card).
Authorized alien include EAD holders, GC holders, OPT, and US citizens. If you don't believe me, feel free to put this question in lawyer's forum and let me know what response you get.
Now, coming back to your quote
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --This simply means that Employer can not discriminate for hiring (or other aspects of hiring) any individual because of Immigration status (i.e. GC, EAD, OPT). For an employer, two applicants can not be discriminated because of their immigrant status, as long as they are authorized to work for the employer.
In fact, from legal pont of view, applicant requiring H-1B sponsorship can br refused without assigning any reason beyond employer can not sponsor H-1B visa at this time.
It is legal to advertise job that this job position is open for workers who have unrestricted work authorization. EAD is nonrestrictive work authorization in spite of its expiration date.
Walking dude's effort will at least highlight the fact that H1Bs are not preferred over GCs/Citizens. In fact it is the other way around. One of my colleague who recently got his GC, was surprised to see so many job offers opening up for him just because he was a GC holder.
Again, this is because, as GC holder and H-1B worker are not at par due to restrictions in work authorization. Employers can not be asked to apply for H-1B visa. Most employers would like to avoid hassle of visa sponsorship (additional paper work and legal requirements) and they prefer hiring H-1B worker as contractor through consulting company instead of employee.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Here is the part of the law that says a job aspirant should not be discriminated by his/her immigration status as long as he/she has a valid work permit( H1B/GC/EAD/Citizenship).
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --
The only individual that can be discriminated against is an unauthorized alien. H1B/GC/EAD/Citizen does not fall in this category.
Thanks for your reply.
H-1B visa holder is not authorized alien to work for any employer. Employer can not be asked to provide H-1B sponsorship.
Infact H-1B worker has lot of restrictions related to his work. H1-B worker has to work only in his job location and pay range as specified in LCA. Any significant changes in job location, job duties, and/or salary requires LCA and H-1B petition amendment. H-1B worker is out of status when out of job for any reason. EAD holders, OPT are immigrants, who are not permanent resident, but they do not have such restrictions. And, thats why, they are authorized alien to work for any employer. (Hint: SSN card for H-1B holder has line - work with USCIS authorization only whereas GC/EAD holder does not have that line on their SSN card).
Authorized alien include EAD holders, GC holders, OPT, and US citizens. If you don't believe me, feel free to put this question in lawyer's forum and let me know what response you get.
Now, coming back to your quote
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --This simply means that Employer can not discriminate for hiring (or other aspects of hiring) any individual because of Immigration status (i.e. GC, EAD, OPT). For an employer, two applicants can not be discriminated because of their immigrant status, as long as they are authorized to work for the employer.
In fact, from legal pont of view, applicant requiring H-1B sponsorship can br refused without assigning any reason beyond employer can not sponsor H-1B visa at this time.
It is legal to advertise job that this job position is open for workers who have unrestricted work authorization. EAD is nonrestrictive work authorization in spite of its expiration date.
Walking dude's effort will at least highlight the fact that H1Bs are not preferred over GCs/Citizens. In fact it is the other way around. One of my colleague who recently got his GC, was surprised to see so many job offers opening up for him just because he was a GC holder.
Again, this is because, as GC holder and H-1B worker are not at par due to restrictions in work authorization. Employers can not be asked to apply for H-1B visa. Most employers would like to avoid hassle of visa sponsorship (additional paper work and legal requirements) and they prefer hiring H-1B worker as contractor through consulting company instead of employee.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
TIND_CT
08-25 02:23 PM
485+131+765 - Delivered on 5th July - TSC - EB3
No receipt yet..
No receipt yet..
hair Call of Duty: Black Ops
indianindian2006
08-27 06:17 PM
My date will be current next month. But I got fingerprinting notice, and the appointment is on Sep 17th . Does that means will I have to wait until my FP is done to get the approval?. Please suggest me is there any way I can get my FP done prior to the scheduled date. This is my 2nd FP notice. First one was in Feb 2008.
you should be able to do a walk-in finger printing on any day, they will make you wait a bit though.
you should be able to do a walk-in finger printing on any day, they will make you wait a bit though.
more...
reddymjm
06-12 11:55 AM
I filed 485/EAD/AP on May 31st and TSC received on June 1st. My checks haven't been cleared yet. TSC is said to be the slowest one. In a chinese forum, several people whose PD became current on June 1st got 485 approved recently. Their cases were all transferred to NSC recently.
BTW, how long will it take to get EAD? I sort of remember that it takes at most 3 months.
As far as i heard TSC is the fastest man. NSC is the snail...
BTW, how long will it take to get EAD? I sort of remember that it takes at most 3 months.
As far as i heard TSC is the fastest man. NSC is the snail...
hot ops zombies ascension map
gc_bulgaria
09-20 10:15 AM
Today I saw that my checks were cashed and I called USCIS to get the receipt numbers. The IO was very polite and gave me the numbers. Although I had filed at the Nebraska center, the receipt number starts with SRC (Texas).
EB2 ROW (Cross Charge)
PD: 1/11/07
I 140 Approved (Texas): 8/22/07
AOS sent (Nebraska) : 7/26/07
Receipt /Notice (SRC): 9/17/07
EB2 ROW (Cross Charge)
PD: 1/11/07
I 140 Approved (Texas): 8/22/07
AOS sent (Nebraska) : 7/26/07
Receipt /Notice (SRC): 9/17/07
more...
house Ascension you play as
desi3933
02-05 11:01 AM
Desi3933 - Thank you for sharing this link. Now I totally believe it.
As promised before, now after looking at DOL web site, I will shut up.
Kumar -
You are welcome. I am glad to be of help.
There was a case U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR vs. Ken Technologies, Inc. That dealt with issues of benching and when employer is liable to start paying.
Personally, I don't want you to "shut up". Disagreement is part of healthy discussion. But I felt your post should have been little more polite than this post.
Where is it written???? 30 day rule?????? SHOW ME ...................................
STOP THIS NON-SENSE.......
As promised before, now after looking at DOL web site, I will shut up.
Kumar -
You are welcome. I am glad to be of help.
There was a case U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR vs. Ken Technologies, Inc. That dealt with issues of benching and when employer is liable to start paying.
Personally, I don't want you to "shut up". Disagreement is part of healthy discussion. But I felt your post should have been little more polite than this post.
Where is it written???? 30 day rule?????? SHOW ME ...................................
STOP THIS NON-SENSE.......
tattoo The map pack that Treyarch#39;s
gcwait2007
04-20 12:36 PM
I work for company A which sent me to client C through company B(Prefered vendor). After working with the same client for 1.5 yrs, transfered my h1b to company B(PF) due to issues with the pay with company A. Company A has deducted huge sum of money($4000) from my last months pay towards PERM filing(Still under process). Upon demanding them to reimburse my money saying that its against law, they r threatening me saying that based on non-compete agreement they will take legal action against me.
I am not actually aware of the clauses in the agreement. company B(PF) told me that it does not have any clauses in its agreement with company A prohibiting them from taking me.Though i requested company A to provide me a copy of non-compete, they said i signed with them, they haven�t. The company is located in NJ and not sure how non-competes work under NJ state law.
I am really frustated upon this blackmail and going thru lot of pressure. The amount is too big too leave and cannot afford to hire a lawyer in case they file suit based on non-compete. even if i had signed a non compete agreement how does it stand as it is conflicting the agreement which company a signed with PF sayign tht upon my termination of the emplyment with them, Pf can take me without any gap period... what can i do to get my money. they also refused to provide me with experience letter which i need for my future GC filing.
Plz give me ur valuable inputs
I work for a company which recovers expenses incurred for relocation, training, certification exam fee paid, GC expenses, etc if I choose to leave them with in one year of incurring expenses. It seems to be a common practice. Many times, these recovery is waived at the discretion of the managers.
I am not actually aware of the clauses in the agreement. company B(PF) told me that it does not have any clauses in its agreement with company A prohibiting them from taking me.Though i requested company A to provide me a copy of non-compete, they said i signed with them, they haven�t. The company is located in NJ and not sure how non-competes work under NJ state law.
I am really frustated upon this blackmail and going thru lot of pressure. The amount is too big too leave and cannot afford to hire a lawyer in case they file suit based on non-compete. even if i had signed a non compete agreement how does it stand as it is conflicting the agreement which company a signed with PF sayign tht upon my termination of the emplyment with them, Pf can take me without any gap period... what can i do to get my money. they also refused to provide me with experience letter which i need for my future GC filing.
Plz give me ur valuable inputs
I work for a company which recovers expenses incurred for relocation, training, certification exam fee paid, GC expenses, etc if I choose to leave them with in one year of incurring expenses. It seems to be a common practice. Many times, these recovery is waived at the discretion of the managers.
more...
pictures The last map pack,
prashantkh
06-23 05:06 PM
I agree, another argument in support is that if the situation of skilled legal immigrants does not improve many of them may consider other options like Canada, Australia, UK, NZ or even going back home. The employers most likely will outsource the jobs to other countries and once that happens that position is permanently gone from US. Hoewver, if an immigrant is working here the position is still here in US and can be taken by a citizen or a resident here if the immigrant workers leaves the job position.
PK
This myth has never been successfully countered in the media or any other PR or lobbying channel by the legal immigration crowd.
The standard line amounts to this:
We are highly skilled we are legal and we are stuck and dont deserve this.
This is not good PR. Nobody cares about this.. it will get us nowhere..
We need to have a standard message apart from all other humint crap..
1) legals cannot undercut US jobseekers because of strict labor laws. Employers are paying a premium in wages as well as legal fees to retain their legal alien workforce. IT would be foolhardy of them to go through the hassle if local talent was easily available.
2) legals are in most cases paying taxes for which they may never realize the benifits like social security.
We need to let it be known in a firm polite manner that
1) we are giving more than we are getting and are not free loaders
2) we are not harming or displacing anyone.
I dont think this can be perceived as tryng to distance ourselves from undocumented workers. There are rare moments when the media does focus on legal immigrants as a group lets make the most of it.
PK
This myth has never been successfully countered in the media or any other PR or lobbying channel by the legal immigration crowd.
The standard line amounts to this:
We are highly skilled we are legal and we are stuck and dont deserve this.
This is not good PR. Nobody cares about this.. it will get us nowhere..
We need to have a standard message apart from all other humint crap..
1) legals cannot undercut US jobseekers because of strict labor laws. Employers are paying a premium in wages as well as legal fees to retain their legal alien workforce. IT would be foolhardy of them to go through the hassle if local talent was easily available.
2) legals are in most cases paying taxes for which they may never realize the benifits like social security.
We need to let it be known in a firm polite manner that
1) we are giving more than we are getting and are not free loaders
2) we are not harming or displacing anyone.
I dont think this can be perceived as tryng to distance ourselves from undocumented workers. There are rare moments when the media does focus on legal immigrants as a group lets make the most of it.
dresses +lack+ops+ascension+map+
buddyinsd
08-31 01:33 PM
If this is not racism then what is? U R VERY SICK...Get well soon!!!
How am I being a racist? I'm just pointing out the fact that North and South Indians belong to different races and USCIS should stop clubbing them together.
How am I being a racist? I'm just pointing out the fact that North and South Indians belong to different races and USCIS should stop clubbing them together.
more...
makeup Black Ops Ascension Map
immigrationmatters30
07-22 08:17 AM
Even If this happens, it will not help EB3I because then the spill over will be shared by all countries in EB3. Then there will not be any option left both for EB2 and EB3. Now atleast there is an option for some EB3 folks to move to EB2.
girlfriend call of duty lack ops map
NKR
04-22 12:44 PM
I understand if the companies want to protect their business. Let�s say that X works at a client place through a vendor. X�s employer has an agreement with the vendor which says that he cannot employ his employee, the vendor has an agreement with the client which says that they cannot take X through another vendor.
My question is there a validity period for these agreements beyond which it becomes invalid. A couple of years should be ok but it is frustrating to be bonded to some employer for years because one doesn�t have freedom to move around and be with the same client.
My question is there a validity period for these agreements beyond which it becomes invalid. A couple of years should be ok but it is frustrating to be bonded to some employer for years because one doesn�t have freedom to move around and be with the same client.
hairstyles Ascension, berlin wall
gcfordesi
09-09 05:57 PM
Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
swissgear
08-25 04:34 PM
No approvals today? Whats going on???
There were a couple of approvals today from TSC by looking at the other site.But slowed down a lot. Maybe USCIS is taking a break this last week and preparing for the next month:)
There were a couple of approvals today from TSC by looking at the other site.But slowed down a lot. Maybe USCIS is taking a break this last week and preparing for the next month:)
trueguy
09-19 07:31 PM
By August 2009 buletin, EB3-I will settle between 2005 Jan-May.
on what basis are you saying that?
on what basis are you saying that?
No comments:
Post a Comment