gcdreamer05
08-05 05:11 PM
Guys n Girls,
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
wallpaper David Henrie NEW BIBLE TATTOOS
hibhagya
05-15 12:03 PM
Great job and hope the current immigrations bill will pass this year.
andy garcia
11-10 09:30 PM
Remember, USCIS only tells us "total" I-485 receipts. They don't break it down to what many of us are interested to know, which is, how many are family based and how many are employment based. There is no way to know how many of the 150K receipts issued in Sept for I-485 were EB.
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
That total also includes Asylum/refugee, DV lottery and Immediate Relatives.
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
That total also includes Asylum/refugee, DV lottery and Immediate Relatives.
2011 David Henrie is an American
arunmohan
11-21 01:42 PM
Sent.
more...
ss1026
04-10 03:56 PM
163,000 applns for general and more than 31,200 applns for advanced degree.
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a preliminary number of nearly 163,000 H-1B petitions received during the filing period ending on April 7, 2008. More than 31,200 of those petitions were for the advanced degree category.
I read this as saying this....
The 163k number includes the advance degree number. So it is 132K for general and 31k for advance
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a preliminary number of nearly 163,000 H-1B petitions received during the filing period ending on April 7, 2008. More than 31,200 of those petitions were for the advanced degree category.
I read this as saying this....
The 163k number includes the advance degree number. So it is 132K for general and 31k for advance
days_go_by
08-23 10:52 PM
180K per BEC and 2 of them so 360K cases overall.
more...
sledge_hammer
06-15 03:44 PM
Hi kak1978,
what's the process for getting the "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" from BOA?
Thanks!
I had a account in Bank of America, and they sent me a letter when i asked them to send a "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" They charged me $10 for that and took around a week. See if you can open a account at a local bank and try transfering the money to that account, Before you decide on opening a account , confirm if they issue such a letter.
what's the process for getting the "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" from BOA?
Thanks!
I had a account in Bank of America, and they sent me a letter when i asked them to send a "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" They charged me $10 for that and took around a week. See if you can open a account at a local bank and try transfering the money to that account, Before you decide on opening a account , confirm if they issue such a letter.
2010 david henrie tattoo. david
gemini23
07-17 02:23 PM
Excerpt from Gregs blog and comments :(
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
OK. Now we have this new thread about the "comment" made some anonymous user "south" made on a blog by siskind, and siskind himself is looking at IV for new updates. Man, give us a break. That comment was not made by siskind, but it was made by some user on his blog.
Thanks, but keep moving.
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
OK. Now we have this new thread about the "comment" made some anonymous user "south" made on a blog by siskind, and siskind himself is looking at IV for new updates. Man, give us a break. That comment was not made by siskind, but it was made by some user on his blog.
Thanks, but keep moving.
more...
walking_dude
01-30 11:46 AM
Thanks.
Also, E-mail them the IV Press Release too so that they understand that a whole community is impacted by the issue and there is an organization working on this issue. We are collecting stories from members and can provide to media if they contact us.
Anyone with licence rejection contact - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
We want to get our issues covered by media. Everyone please help us get our DL issues covered by them.
Thanks again for doing the right thing.
Emailed Detroit News and Free Press
and NPR(Miradio.org)
Also, E-mail them the IV Press Release too so that they understand that a whole community is impacted by the issue and there is an organization working on this issue. We are collecting stories from members and can provide to media if they contact us.
Anyone with licence rejection contact - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
We want to get our issues covered by media. Everyone please help us get our DL issues covered by them.
Thanks again for doing the right thing.
Emailed Detroit News and Free Press
and NPR(Miradio.org)
hair What do David Henrie,
NKR
09-21 01:18 AM
Confused ...i think GC stands for Great Confusion
Came in 2001....PD 2003......EB3
Will I ever get my GC? What is it anyway?
When my labor certification was stuck at backlog elimination center, i was hoping that LC does not stand for "Lost Case" and now for some fre**king reason my early 2004 EB2 case is not being picked up when later cases are being approved, now I hope that GC does not stand for "Gone Case".
Came in 2001....PD 2003......EB3
Will I ever get my GC? What is it anyway?
When my labor certification was stuck at backlog elimination center, i was hoping that LC does not stand for "Lost Case" and now for some fre**king reason my early 2004 EB2 case is not being picked up when later cases are being approved, now I hope that GC does not stand for "Gone Case".
more...
GooblyWoobly
07-19 05:09 PM
Can someone give me answer for the second question:
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
hot david-henrie-six-pack
immiguy
07-20 05:03 PM
her priority date is march 2005 .and they filed for AoS on july 2nd.Her due date is november of this year. I am guessingt hat their 485 will not be approved november of this year.So, they can bring the child on h4 into the country. but then if their 485 gets approved in a year of 18 months-- what happens to the child? How does the child apply ?family based? in that case, the child will ahve to go out of the country for a long time, till the GC is approved- right?
more...
house selena gomez david henrie
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
tattoo David#39;s tattoos:
ganguteli
06-12 11:50 AM
I was born in Oct too :) :)
2 October 1869 ?
2 October 1869 ?
more...
pictures David Henrie Muscle Off!
GotGC??
01-02 03:30 PM
Good for you, and glad to know. I have made my past visa appointments on this premise, so do not know how strictly they enforce it.
But if you visit the US Consulate Vancouver site it is mentioned somewhere - in fact there are many discussions on this topic on other forums.
>>>You can travel on your current stamped H4. In fact, I'm not sure if you can even get the new H4 stamped now because they say that you can get the new approval stamped only 10 days prior to the expiry of the current one. In other words, you could get the new approval stamped after 6/10/2007 but I do not know how strictly they enfore that.
I got stamped in July-06 while my existing stamp was valid up to 12/31/06..
But if you visit the US Consulate Vancouver site it is mentioned somewhere - in fact there are many discussions on this topic on other forums.
>>>You can travel on your current stamped H4. In fact, I'm not sure if you can even get the new H4 stamped now because they say that you can get the new approval stamped only 10 days prior to the expiry of the current one. In other words, you could get the new approval stamped after 6/10/2007 but I do not know how strictly they enfore that.
I got stamped in July-06 while my existing stamp was valid up to 12/31/06..
dresses David Henrie amp; Elle McLemore: Terre Sushi Twosome .
logiclife
12-01 03:33 PM
The job description is the key. Titles dont matter. My official title at my company is "programmer level 3".( I am an Oracle programmer)
That doesnt mean anything to anyone OUTSIDE of my company. Does it mean that I am top-level programmer? or does it mean that I am 3rd level junior programmer?
But the JOB DESCRIPTION must be accurate.(As much as possible, there is a limit to how much 10 lines can do in describing your job).
As far as resume is concerned, didnt your lawyer look at your resume before filing labor? I remember my lawyer consulting my HR, my boss and my resume before writing the job description on my labor so that its accurate. Anyways, resume is something that is subject to change all the time and I dont think USCIS expects you to have your resume in line with your job desc on labor. Resume is about your qualifications and abilities - which may or may not be the same thing that your actually perform at your work.
That doesnt mean anything to anyone OUTSIDE of my company. Does it mean that I am top-level programmer? or does it mean that I am 3rd level junior programmer?
But the JOB DESCRIPTION must be accurate.(As much as possible, there is a limit to how much 10 lines can do in describing your job).
As far as resume is concerned, didnt your lawyer look at your resume before filing labor? I remember my lawyer consulting my HR, my boss and my resume before writing the job description on my labor so that its accurate. Anyways, resume is something that is subject to change all the time and I dont think USCIS expects you to have your resume in line with your job desc on labor. Resume is about your qualifications and abilities - which may or may not be the same thing that your actually perform at your work.
more...
makeup (David Henrie with Selena
sam_hoosier
12-21 10:25 AM
I will also be calling in.
girlfriend david henrie selena gomez
for_gc
09-26 11:00 AM
ohhhh wow !! .. Man ...It not so easy as it looks on paper ...U will find tons of ppl in the stage of limbo after doing all this ... (including me though :(
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
Hi pd_recapturing,
Can you please elaborate on your experience. This is an issue very close to my heart as well and possibly benefit lots of other folks on this forum.
I personally know a fried who in fact benefited from PD porting and got his GC sometime in 2007 beginning. He had a EB3 PD of 2001 which he used for his EB2 application with another employer.
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
Hi pd_recapturing,
Can you please elaborate on your experience. This is an issue very close to my heart as well and possibly benefit lots of other folks on this forum.
I personally know a fried who in fact benefited from PD porting and got his GC sometime in 2007 beginning. He had a EB3 PD of 2001 which he used for his EB2 application with another employer.
hairstyles david henrie beach. tattoo
bobbydalal
09-10 03:33 PM
Guys im an Eb3 applicant and my pd is 2007. I got a transfer notice of my I485 being transferred to USCIS-NBC lees summit ,mo . wHAT DOES THIS MEAN. i HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE SAME COMPANY FOR LAST 9 YEARS and had submitted all the tax returns at the time of I140 approval. Is there something i should worry about. pLEASE ADVISE.
dbevis
November 9th, 2003, 06:40 AM
To bad this image got corrupted somehow in the server move....a repost of the full image would sure be great.
That's really weird. I reattached it and the link works again.
Don
That's really weird. I reattached it and the link works again.
Don
GC092003
04-18 11:33 AM
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
Please give me your advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment