a_yaja
01-16 11:44 AM
In a way you are right but not entirely. It is the responsibility of the sponsoring company (that filed H1 for the person) to pay while he/she is employed with the company. Its does not matter whether he/she has a client project or not. So, as long as the sponsoring company say they are going to pay him he/she is legal.
The original poster said that she was "laid off". So the question of her sponsoring company paying her does not arise. And hence she is without a job and she knows it. On this basis I said that it would be considered fraud if she goes for H1B stamping.
The original poster said that she was "laid off". So the question of her sponsoring company paying her does not arise. And hence she is without a job and she knows it. On this basis I said that it would be considered fraud if she goes for H1B stamping.
wallpaper bowling coloring pages
bluekayal
10-20 04:06 AM
that sounds good. She/ you should be OK.
GCard_Dream
07-28 04:17 PM
Thank you for the very helpful information. This is exactly what I plan to do unless the IO at the port-of-entry specifically asks for the travel doc. I sure hope that it doesn't come to that because I don't want to use the travel doc.
When we have traveled to Matamoros, MX for stamping we had AP and H1/H4. On return we have used H1/H4. NO questions asked at the border check post.
When we have traveled to Matamoros, MX for stamping we had AP and H1/H4. On return we have used H1/H4. NO questions asked at the border check post.
2011 view full-size. National
ashkam
09-14 07:42 AM
I watched Schindler's list and I don't know, I feel the Jews had it a bit worse than the "highly skilled immigrant" community. You know, what with the gas chambers and millions executed and what not.
more...
number30
04-09 06:28 PM
If you do so, your 485 will get abonded, as you travelled without parloe when you are in AOS. If you want to protect 485, you must get AP before leaving. H1B visa will be usefull, only if you maintain H1 status just before leaving US and resumes H1 after arrival.
That is Wrong. He can enter on H1 still maintain I-485. H1 can be from any compnay.There is reason why H1 is called as dual intent visa.
That is Wrong. He can enter on H1 still maintain I-485. H1 can be from any compnay.There is reason why H1 is called as dual intent visa.
payur
09-07 02:03 PM
I am on H4 visa. Applied for 485 in june 2007 and got my EAD and AP last month.
Unfortunately I also applied for H1 visa in march 2007, and it got approved now. I told the employer that I will work on EAD and don't need my visa.
He is now blackmailing me to pay the amount or he will give negative feedback/comments/reason for me in H1 cancellation letter.
I didnot sign any agreement with him.
What is the H1 cancellation form/letter?
Does it have any impact on my Green Card Process? Please Advise.
Thanks for any replies
The main impact I can see is revoking your I140 which could have an impact on your GC process.
I am not sure about H1B cancellation letter. What is your PD date and SC?
Unfortunately I also applied for H1 visa in march 2007, and it got approved now. I told the employer that I will work on EAD and don't need my visa.
He is now blackmailing me to pay the amount or he will give negative feedback/comments/reason for me in H1 cancellation letter.
I didnot sign any agreement with him.
What is the H1 cancellation form/letter?
Does it have any impact on my Green Card Process? Please Advise.
Thanks for any replies
The main impact I can see is revoking your I140 which could have an impact on your GC process.
I am not sure about H1B cancellation letter. What is your PD date and SC?
more...
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGIBGynl7vpLiHOmAmI-eSCnXcVxJitlQ75ZejOz3zY5TBamWxKk23D1Q9kav06V8abjhGv5q2VUc83JYnTYOKbYlBUjsoAyhTWN1Ft53u9teaRZSC_cnD8daXiLJLfcYeUNaiBcXB-kwY/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGIBGynl7vpLiHOmAmI-eSCnXcVxJitlQ75ZejOz3zY5TBamWxKk23D1Q9kav06V8abjhGv5q2VUc83JYnTYOKbYlBUjsoAyhTWN1Ft53u9teaRZSC_cnD8daXiLJLfcYeUNaiBcXB-kwY/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
2010 pointing coloring pages
JupiterTransit
08-27 06:32 PM
A friend of mine filed a few days before me and got his EAD a few days ago..from TSC.Hoping the July 2nd rush would not affect me by more than a few weeks.My lawyer is not able to confirm if the checks were cashed. I cannot tell if the checks were cashed either as these were checks from my company.
The lawyer however mentioned that my premium processing check may return (I-140) and my application may have gone in regular queue. Everything is speculation for now..Any one else in the same boat or can throw more light...
The lawyer however mentioned that my premium processing check may return (I-140) and my application may have gone in regular queue. Everything is speculation for now..Any one else in the same boat or can throw more light...
more...
veni001
01-30 07:15 PM
I am actually doing this right now. See my signature.
As long as your employer document all stuff, i.e what happens to current EB3 position etc.. you should be OK, if not, even after i140 approval USCIS can come back and revoke approved i140( for fraud);)
As long as your employer document all stuff, i.e what happens to current EB3 position etc.. you should be OK, if not, even after i140 approval USCIS can come back and revoke approved i140( for fraud);)
hair SELECT AND PRINT COLORING PAGE
LongWait2005
07-13 08:31 AM
Done.
more...
WeShallOvercome
07-26 01:49 PM
I do not have the approval notice used to obtain a visa to enter the country for the very first time in 2001.
All attempts to obtain a copy of the I-797 from company/attorney have failed and so I have filed a I-824 for a duplicate. That will take a few months.
I am wondering what will happen if USCIS issues a RFE on my I-485 asking for evidence of lawful presence all these years.
I don't have all the I-94s either. I do have the visa stamp on my passport.
Man,
First of all change your title. It looks like you actually did get an RFE !
Secondly, they do not ask for your status since first entry. They look for last entry.
I've never seen any RFE like this.
I know 200,000 people who do not have their past I-797s and/or I-94s, none of them is worried....
If Immigration let you enter ona visa last time, alll your previous sins are forgotten!
Chill
And please change the title
All attempts to obtain a copy of the I-797 from company/attorney have failed and so I have filed a I-824 for a duplicate. That will take a few months.
I am wondering what will happen if USCIS issues a RFE on my I-485 asking for evidence of lawful presence all these years.
I don't have all the I-94s either. I do have the visa stamp on my passport.
Man,
First of all change your title. It looks like you actually did get an RFE !
Secondly, they do not ask for your status since first entry. They look for last entry.
I've never seen any RFE like this.
I know 200,000 people who do not have their past I-797s and/or I-94s, none of them is worried....
If Immigration let you enter ona visa last time, alll your previous sins are forgotten!
Chill
And please change the title
hot SIMPLE US MAP tadpole coloring
zulo1715
10-20 05:44 PM
The problem might occur when you file for citizenship, you have to justify why you dint work after getting the GC. However it is not written in stone that if you dont work for your petitioning company the officer will deny your citizenship or revoke your GC. They will look at the totality of the circumstances, since you worked for the petitioner for some time, they may not make a determination that the job offer was speculative, you have to show that you had every intention of working for them and the company had every intention of hiring you, maybe they can give a letter stating that they continue to market you and will re-hire as soon as the economy imporves. If your company finds a project for you, you should continue to work for them. Or you could have done AC-21 after the I-140 was approved and before the I-485 was approved.
Thank you Prashanthi for your reply.
I have a letter (it's in email format) that shows my lay-off is because of "lack of work". However, this letter is for the time before my GC was approved. I suppose that I need to get a letter from the company dated sometime after my GC approval date in order to present that in the time my citizenship process to justify that the job offer was not speculative; right?
That might also possible to get a letter from the company that shows they are willing to hire me in case there's a new project; thanks for your comment on this.
Thank you Prashanthi for your reply.
I have a letter (it's in email format) that shows my lay-off is because of "lack of work". However, this letter is for the time before my GC was approved. I suppose that I need to get a letter from the company dated sometime after my GC approval date in order to present that in the time my citizenship process to justify that the job offer was not speculative; right?
That might also possible to get a letter from the company that shows they are willing to hire me in case there's a new project; thanks for your comment on this.
more...
house coloring page usa maps
conchshell
07-12 10:37 PM
Please access http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html to read the details.
The foregoing review would suggest that there might be potentially two options to correct the current visa bulletin fiasco. One option is for the USCIS to reverse itself and abandon its decision to reject the I-485 applications and start accepting the I-485 applications under the original July Visa Bulletin. In fact, this is do-able regardless of legality of the DOS act to revise, if there was revision at all, the visa bulletin in the middle of the month, or the legality of the releasing "updates" without revision of the visa bulletin and changing it to "unavailabile." Probably, there was no precedent of such action in the DOS history. From the perspectives of the USCIS, they do not have to follow such an act of the sister agency. They should just stick to the USCIS own regulation to authorize accepting I-485 applications when the visa number was available since the legality of the DOS act was arguably of suspect in all accounts. Sometimes, however, reversing one's decision may not be that easy because of potential complex political and legal issues involved. An alternative might be the second option that changes its rule to permit I-485 application, I-765 employment authorization application, and I-131 applications for the foreign workers and their spouses and children if the foreign workers have obtained the labor certification approvals. Without doubt, the USCIS has been looking into the feasibility of changing the policy without legislation on the procedural issues which are described here. The fact that this reform was introduced in the Congress as part of the SKIL bill or Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act bill would not preclude the USCIS from looking into feasibility of achieving such changes in the procedures under the given legislative authority. All of the current debacle or fiasco would have been prevented, had the Congress passed the SKIL bill or CIR. At this juncture, though, the nation and EB immigrants do not have a luxury to point a finger at the failures of the Congress as it serves no purposes whatsoever. We really hope that the USCIS will work out one of these two solutions promptly to save the nation from further confusion and nightmare.
The foregoing review would suggest that there might be potentially two options to correct the current visa bulletin fiasco. One option is for the USCIS to reverse itself and abandon its decision to reject the I-485 applications and start accepting the I-485 applications under the original July Visa Bulletin. In fact, this is do-able regardless of legality of the DOS act to revise, if there was revision at all, the visa bulletin in the middle of the month, or the legality of the releasing "updates" without revision of the visa bulletin and changing it to "unavailabile." Probably, there was no precedent of such action in the DOS history. From the perspectives of the USCIS, they do not have to follow such an act of the sister agency. They should just stick to the USCIS own regulation to authorize accepting I-485 applications when the visa number was available since the legality of the DOS act was arguably of suspect in all accounts. Sometimes, however, reversing one's decision may not be that easy because of potential complex political and legal issues involved. An alternative might be the second option that changes its rule to permit I-485 application, I-765 employment authorization application, and I-131 applications for the foreign workers and their spouses and children if the foreign workers have obtained the labor certification approvals. Without doubt, the USCIS has been looking into the feasibility of changing the policy without legislation on the procedural issues which are described here. The fact that this reform was introduced in the Congress as part of the SKIL bill or Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act bill would not preclude the USCIS from looking into feasibility of achieving such changes in the procedures under the given legislative authority. All of the current debacle or fiasco would have been prevented, had the Congress passed the SKIL bill or CIR. At this juncture, though, the nation and EB immigrants do not have a luxury to point a finger at the failures of the Congress as it serves no purposes whatsoever. We really hope that the USCIS will work out one of these two solutions promptly to save the nation from further confusion and nightmare.
tattoo state coloring pages - usa
sudiptasarkar
11-06 08:38 AM
Hi,
How much time did they give you for responding to the RFE?
Also any one has a sample of the affidavit?
Thanks
How much time did they give you for responding to the RFE?
Also any one has a sample of the affidavit?
Thanks
more...
pictures pokemon trading legendary
upuaut
08-10 06:59 AM
Yeah.. I was going for that sort of effect (being a big fan of "Indiana Jones" movies, and "Big trouble in Little China"; and having more than a passing interest in Egyptology). Really this dial is the production that finaly got me thinking that I might have some tallent with Flash. It looks good, loads fast, and is almost immediately understood for what it is.
Thanks for the koodoes..
Thanks for the koodoes..
dresses valentines coloring pages 2
pappu
12-05 08:24 AM
That's true for my case. My labor certification was denied once due to the naive aknowledge of my para-legal attorney. It caused my LC was delay 1 year then I was stuck by Retrogression. Again at filing I-485, if I have not carefully studied the immi laws and reviewed my case, my attorney might mess it up. Many times I found my non-professional, clumsy knowledge on Immi laws is even better than my para-legal attorney
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2453
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2453
more...
makeup 5 coloring pages northeast
cooldude
07-19 12:22 AM
My lawyer sent me the fedex tracking sheet for the I-485 package sent to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
I did not see any PO Box on the Fedex tracking sheet. I am not sure if she put the PO Box on the shipping label or not??
Is it a big deal?? Will my application be accepted.
Please help
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
I did not see any PO Box on the Fedex tracking sheet. I am not sure if she put the PO Box on the shipping label or not??
Is it a big deal?? Will my application be accepted.
Please help
girlfriend coloring pages zoo animals.
tabaching
10-22 09:34 AM
Hey kumarc123,
Thank you.
Actually, there is a stamp in the passport at the time of entry to US (Dec 2007). And they can verify that. That's why we entered Dec 2007 as the last entry date in I-485 form. It's just that I-94 has the old date (Feb 2005). We're hoping this won't cause any trouble during the interview.
Hope I didn't confuse you.
Thank you.
Actually, there is a stamp in the passport at the time of entry to US (Dec 2007). And they can verify that. That's why we entered Dec 2007 as the last entry date in I-485 form. It's just that I-94 has the old date (Feb 2005). We're hoping this won't cause any trouble during the interview.
Hope I didn't confuse you.
hairstyles Halloween coloring pages
jayleno
09-24 10:57 AM
Family based visas has a lot of support from the citizens who are actually voting in the elections, no wonder politicians like it. No matter what you say, anti-immigrants will always twist the truth and spread the news that all these visas are new and will take away American jobs. Dont you think family based people will want to drop all the employment based green cards?
Guys, HR 5882 is having Total recapture of 550,000 visas (Employment Based + Family Based) . We all were hoping that this bill would pass, but it did not pass in Judiciary Committee so far. Probably because of opposition from some lawmakers, may be group of some people due to current state of Economy.
But How about, if we would just try for "Recapture for Employment Based visas , for Adjustment of Status" ( EB Visa recapture Numbers are arround 218,000). By this way, no American job would be taken away as this is just a recpture of visas for just Adjustment of Status. So, if we can drop Family Based Visa Recapture from the bill (approx.332,000 visa), this bill might pass in the congress. Looks like, we do not have any choice and bill might still have possibility of passing in lame duck session. Don't get me wrong, I also want to keep Family Based Visas in the Current State of HR 5882 Bill. But if we would be able to pass just recapture of Employment Based visas at this stage, Family based visas recapture can be taken up later on. This is just a thought. IV core group and members can discuss this idea for further action.
Guys, HR 5882 is having Total recapture of 550,000 visas (Employment Based + Family Based) . We all were hoping that this bill would pass, but it did not pass in Judiciary Committee so far. Probably because of opposition from some lawmakers, may be group of some people due to current state of Economy.
But How about, if we would just try for "Recapture for Employment Based visas , for Adjustment of Status" ( EB Visa recapture Numbers are arround 218,000). By this way, no American job would be taken away as this is just a recpture of visas for just Adjustment of Status. So, if we can drop Family Based Visa Recapture from the bill (approx.332,000 visa), this bill might pass in the congress. Looks like, we do not have any choice and bill might still have possibility of passing in lame duck session. Don't get me wrong, I also want to keep Family Based Visas in the Current State of HR 5882 Bill. But if we would be able to pass just recapture of Employment Based visas at this stage, Family based visas recapture can be taken up later on. This is just a thought. IV core group and members can discuss this idea for further action.
santa123
07-01 11:48 PM
Hello IVans,
According to Attorney Murthy on June 27, 2008,
"It is hoped that, as the USCIS works through the numerous pending I-140 petitions, premium processing will resume on a more widespread basis"
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_pp4140.html
I strongly feel that AILA and their associates are pretty good at predicting the policy changes within USCIS / DOL. In my observation, such statements by leading immigration Attorneys have resulted in near future procedural / policy changes. I consider this as an hint to all GC seekers to brace for I140 PP across the board, not just for people on the H1B brink.
Does anyone feel the same? any thoughts?
According to Attorney Murthy on June 27, 2008,
"It is hoped that, as the USCIS works through the numerous pending I-140 petitions, premium processing will resume on a more widespread basis"
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_pp4140.html
I strongly feel that AILA and their associates are pretty good at predicting the policy changes within USCIS / DOL. In my observation, such statements by leading immigration Attorneys have resulted in near future procedural / policy changes. I consider this as an hint to all GC seekers to brace for I140 PP across the board, not just for people on the H1B brink.
Does anyone feel the same? any thoughts?
ragnarok
07-19 08:51 PM
Thanks for the response.
My Priority Date is:
March 16, 2001.
What can you guys tell me?
Thanks.
My Priority Date is:
March 16, 2001.
What can you guys tell me?
Thanks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment