GCFROMOHIO
03-26 06:18 PM
Hi All,
I currently have an EB3 March 2003 priority date labor I140 approved with my company. Recently, I wanted to move to consulting, sothat I can get my GC converted to EB2 as the dates are only 2 months apart. I have asked my company if they are willing to take me as a contractor once I am out of the company and go to a consulting company. They said that it should be fine, but they said if GC is the only purpose, they can try to do something about converting my existing labor to EB2. It's a very big fortune 500 company and they do all their labors in EB3. My question is:
1. Can I re-apply another labor in EB2 for a position that qualifies in the same company and can port the existing EB3 priority date? Has anyone done this in the past?
2. Can I use any prior priority date approved labor in the same company, even though my EB3 I140 is approved with the same company.
3. Can I move to consulting company and reapply in EB2 with existing priority date and work for the same company that has my current labor.
The company legal counsel said that they would come back to me with some answers this week, but I want to get second opinion from all of you in this regard. I have my Masters in 2000 and MBA in 2004 with 8 years experience and so EB2 qualification shouldn't be a problem
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
I currently have an EB3 March 2003 priority date labor I140 approved with my company. Recently, I wanted to move to consulting, sothat I can get my GC converted to EB2 as the dates are only 2 months apart. I have asked my company if they are willing to take me as a contractor once I am out of the company and go to a consulting company. They said that it should be fine, but they said if GC is the only purpose, they can try to do something about converting my existing labor to EB2. It's a very big fortune 500 company and they do all their labors in EB3. My question is:
1. Can I re-apply another labor in EB2 for a position that qualifies in the same company and can port the existing EB3 priority date? Has anyone done this in the past?
2. Can I use any prior priority date approved labor in the same company, even though my EB3 I140 is approved with the same company.
3. Can I move to consulting company and reapply in EB2 with existing priority date and work for the same company that has my current labor.
The company legal counsel said that they would come back to me with some answers this week, but I want to get second opinion from all of you in this regard. I have my Masters in 2000 and MBA in 2004 with 8 years experience and so EB2 qualification shouldn't be a problem
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
wallpaper julia roberts kids
sargon
03-28 01:45 AM
What is the relevance of such long boring rant on an immigration website? What's worse, its not even your original composition. Just some cut and paste from other websites. Cease and desist from such behavior.
http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/mar/27/guest-column-tarun-vijay-on-dynasty-and-the-varun-effect.htm
...
And then they say, they are the future of India.
http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/mar/27/guest-column-tarun-vijay-on-dynasty-and-the-varun-effect.htm
...
And then they say, they are the future of India.
vamsi_poondla
02-14 12:56 PM
Let us get started with legal opinion of Rajiv Khanna. I believe we have strong grounds for the class action law suit for past sins of USCIS - not utilizing full capacity of VISAs for GC processing. That is defintely operational inefficiency. But USCIS might claim that this may never happen again now that the name check requirement is waived off after 180 days.
Around 80 people voted for the law suit. I am willing to contribute $10 thru Paypal on my part. Please pitch in to make it $600 for the consultation. Then one of the folks in DC can get in touch with Rajiv.
lazycis/hopefulgc I am willing to send $10 as a token of support for your initiative. I am impressed by your confidence and conviction. Let us form a new group and we will definitely get moral support from all good IV members. Personally I dont want to be plaintiff as I have too much to loose. But I support your group. Waiting for your direction.
Around 80 people voted for the law suit. I am willing to contribute $10 thru Paypal on my part. Please pitch in to make it $600 for the consultation. Then one of the folks in DC can get in touch with Rajiv.
lazycis/hopefulgc I am willing to send $10 as a token of support for your initiative. I am impressed by your confidence and conviction. Let us form a new group and we will definitely get moral support from all good IV members. Personally I dont want to be plaintiff as I have too much to loose. But I support your group. Waiting for your direction.
2011 Julia
ebizash
07-21 12:06 PM
Did it for 4 years and quit in 2007... lost 20K and 95% of my friends...
Quixtar is not bad but the people running sub-businesses (such as BWW etc) by pushing tapes and books on you make it HELL
Stay Away unless you are willing to lose a lot to gain a few!!
PEACE
Quixtar is not bad but the people running sub-businesses (such as BWW etc) by pushing tapes and books on you make it HELL
Stay Away unless you are willing to lose a lot to gain a few!!
PEACE
more...
eastindia
01-14 09:48 AM
I love this thread. Plainspeak is a worthless guy with worthless opinion entertaining all of us with silly thread and responding to everyone. Dude did you get some problem in life and have so much time to write? If you really want something you could have done something till now.
You do not even want to meet any lawmaker. You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Why are you here?
You do not even want to meet any lawmaker. You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Why are you here?
dvb123
02-15 10:48 AM
my friend you really need to dig deeper into stuff...most things are more than meets the eye. courts are very reluctant to strike down laws. the supreme court will strike down a federal law ONLY if it's against the constitution itself...ie there has to be a fundamental problem. this is true both in the US and in India.
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
Yup Paskal I have a dug a little deeper. Although this case is about DV visa it is very similar to our Visa recatpure situation.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yJNFLn-AtcsJ:vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2004/031075p.pdf+court+order+immigrant+visa+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=in
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
Yup Paskal I have a dug a little deeper. Although this case is about DV visa it is very similar to our Visa recatpure situation.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yJNFLn-AtcsJ:vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2004/031075p.pdf+court+order+immigrant+visa+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=in
more...
oguinan
02-15 11:48 PM
ouignan,
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I enjoyed that article, it's a great find. To be fair, it does offer both opinion and history. I do agree that the 7% limit is unfair but the answer is to increase the supply of green cards so that all qualified applicants get their green cards. The racial element is something everybody should be aware of. It's important that we all have a good understanding of the history of the immigration laws, in the united states and elsewhere. Perhaps "History of Immigration Laws" would be an interesting thread on it's own. At the very least we should add the wikipedia references that we discussed earlier into the resources section.
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I enjoyed that article, it's a great find. To be fair, it does offer both opinion and history. I do agree that the 7% limit is unfair but the answer is to increase the supply of green cards so that all qualified applicants get their green cards. The racial element is something everybody should be aware of. It's important that we all have a good understanding of the history of the immigration laws, in the united states and elsewhere. Perhaps "History of Immigration Laws" would be an interesting thread on it's own. At the very least we should add the wikipedia references that we discussed earlier into the resources section.
2010 julia roberts kids 2011
kumarc123
10-06 07:22 PM
We should follow up on this. US Economy really can take advantage of our buying power. If they give us GC, people will start buying and stop sending their savings to off-shore. Also, buying each house comes with at least 50K other expenses (remodelling, furniture etc) and that will also help the economy.
IV should follow up on this topic with Lawmaker and see if they can understand the logic here.
I can't concur with you less, we need to send this message to American people, also immigrants in this country are the ones, who start maximum numbr of small businesses, more number of borrowing of laons from banks etc
Lets make something happen,
IV should follow up on this topic with Lawmaker and see if they can understand the logic here.
I can't concur with you less, we need to send this message to American people, also immigrants in this country are the ones, who start maximum numbr of small businesses, more number of borrowing of laons from banks etc
Lets make something happen,
more...
tikka
07-04 08:55 AM
Dugg the links, posted to the board. What other action items do we have?
some more items we all can work on
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5989
also mail the reporters listed on this thread
DIGGING is simple we have to encourage more members to DIGG> this will keep our stories as most popular
some more items we all can work on
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5989
also mail the reporters listed on this thread
DIGGING is simple we have to encourage more members to DIGG> this will keep our stories as most popular
hair julia roberts children 2011
sanju
02-15 11:29 AM
This country is against slavery of mankind in any form ( atleast that is what they preach to the rest of the world).
Your above statement is true, but it doesn't apply to EB situation. A slave is not allowed to leave, you are allowed to leave time, at your free will. Its just that you chose not to leave. The correct description of the situation is - you are imposing slavery upon yourself and asking for remedy from the government. Isn't that correct? Jazzy is simply saying that you can leave if you don't like it. So you are not a slave. Its that simple.
Knowingly or unknowingly they have setup laws which virtually make us slaves.
Laws are pretty clear, its just that we are stuck in the process created by those laws and we want to call it "slavery".
This debate will have a conclusive output if we think from our mind instead from our heart. No point in getting emotional about the situation, this debate needs pragmatic thinking and discussion about the possible lawsuit.
Slavery is not a valid argument so no point in mentioning it. Also, whether of not we have a cause depends on the law and not on the logic or the emotional aspect of the debate.
Your above statement is true, but it doesn't apply to EB situation. A slave is not allowed to leave, you are allowed to leave time, at your free will. Its just that you chose not to leave. The correct description of the situation is - you are imposing slavery upon yourself and asking for remedy from the government. Isn't that correct? Jazzy is simply saying that you can leave if you don't like it. So you are not a slave. Its that simple.
Knowingly or unknowingly they have setup laws which virtually make us slaves.
Laws are pretty clear, its just that we are stuck in the process created by those laws and we want to call it "slavery".
This debate will have a conclusive output if we think from our mind instead from our heart. No point in getting emotional about the situation, this debate needs pragmatic thinking and discussion about the possible lawsuit.
Slavery is not a valid argument so no point in mentioning it. Also, whether of not we have a cause depends on the law and not on the logic or the emotional aspect of the debate.
more...
alien007
07-22 08:56 AM
2005. The guy at the college said to the FOBs (including myself)...Dress in your best suits, we are goin to a business meeting! all of us got excited. the meeting was attended by people of all colors. felt good that desis are heading it! then i joined paying around $250. Slowly came to know that its not my cup of tea. The quickstar guys have only few brands of softdrinks and other amway products, always nagging others to join in, faking a spontaneous friendship. The speeches they give at the meetings are all almost the same. they seem to have a standard text, and have an aquired american accent. they talk abt being financially independent, but losing perspective, friends, decency. after a few weeks, i got my refund, and pulled out.
2006. TX. a stranger desi lady was being so friendly to me and my friend in a Walmart. After sometime when she was trying to give her hubby's contact details, i walked away. my friend was caught up, and he wouldnt come! I got many follow up calls from her abt business meetings. i said NO.
2007. a friend of mine comes to Florida from India to do a phd in chemistry. calls me up and says im coming to DE for a meeting. you should come! he said it wasnt abt chemistry. I could immediately smell some amway stink. i advised him not to go for it. im glad he and a lot of others stopped getting into this quickstar quicksand.
I mean, the weeds are everywhere! and at all times.
Just like Telemarketing is regulated at the federal level from using deception, i hope this amway mania is kept under check as well.
2006. TX. a stranger desi lady was being so friendly to me and my friend in a Walmart. After sometime when she was trying to give her hubby's contact details, i walked away. my friend was caught up, and he wouldnt come! I got many follow up calls from her abt business meetings. i said NO.
2007. a friend of mine comes to Florida from India to do a phd in chemistry. calls me up and says im coming to DE for a meeting. you should come! he said it wasnt abt chemistry. I could immediately smell some amway stink. i advised him not to go for it. im glad he and a lot of others stopped getting into this quickstar quicksand.
I mean, the weeds are everywhere! and at all times.
Just like Telemarketing is regulated at the federal level from using deception, i hope this amway mania is kept under check as well.
hot 2011 julia roberts kids 2011.
chintu25
02-13 11:23 AM
Ok - so what is it going to cost us to get a consult with Rajiv Khanna? Anyone know this? Until we have more details on this, I commit $25 for this first consultation. (I will gladly raise the commitment once I know how much this will cost and if IV Core Members support this initiative).
We have three now and atleast 8 who supported this issue on the thread
We have three now and atleast 8 who supported this issue on the thread
more...
house images julia roberts children
jnayar2006
05-10 10:01 PM
The question of immigration to which country is better would probably yield one and the same answer based on the parameters that appear relevant to most people. However, the comparison of immigration processes and systems is an entirely different question - in theory, an employment based immigration system would be a lot better if it is based on correct assumptions. However, an employmet based system that ties an employee to the same job for the duration of the application process, and which requires that the same application processing be redone every time an employee changes jobs, while curtailing the maximum period of time the employee can work in the country is flawed. If the reasoning behind this is that the employee has to show that he/she is indespensible to that one job (with all the highly specific skills that come attached to the job description) which no US citizen/resident is qualified to do, should statistics not show that the majority of positions for which green cards were applied for and obtained have the same employee continuing in that role long after the said employee gets a green card? I would be very surprised if the numbers show that a significant number of employees stick around for any period longer than a year or so in their current, gc-approved roles (and by that, I mean the exact same role for which the GC was applied for - be it with the same company or elsewhere.). In a dynamic market for labor where "skillability" and "learnability" are much more important than current skills and learning, how important is the applicability of a person's current skills to a job that would anyway keep evolving or even changing altogether, during the 6 years of so that a person is employed in that capacity while waiting for the green card?
As long as any amount of faith can be placed on education as an indicator of a person's value to the society, one could contend that a person's level of education and employment *history* (not just the current job) can certainly be used as an excellent proxy for the person's value as an employee to the Nation's economy. Comparing this to the immigration process of Canada etc where the skilled immigrants have not been able to find productive employment commensurate with their titles does not take into account the differences between the two economies. The problem is that skilled immigration and the resultant increase of one factor of production - labor, does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding increase in another extremely important factor of production - entrepreneurship. Over a period of time, though, this will change - the skilled immigrant population of countries like Canada is still relatively young - eventually, with all the other factors of production coming together, and hopefully, with suitable backing via policies that support a good business climate, things will improve in these countries as well. And this is the main thrust of amny of our arguments to the policy makers - if government policy towards improving the economy using skilled immigration is better in other countries that in the US, then the US is losing some piece of the economic progress pie.
Just my $0.02.
As long as any amount of faith can be placed on education as an indicator of a person's value to the society, one could contend that a person's level of education and employment *history* (not just the current job) can certainly be used as an excellent proxy for the person's value as an employee to the Nation's economy. Comparing this to the immigration process of Canada etc where the skilled immigrants have not been able to find productive employment commensurate with their titles does not take into account the differences between the two economies. The problem is that skilled immigration and the resultant increase of one factor of production - labor, does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding increase in another extremely important factor of production - entrepreneurship. Over a period of time, though, this will change - the skilled immigrant population of countries like Canada is still relatively young - eventually, with all the other factors of production coming together, and hopefully, with suitable backing via policies that support a good business climate, things will improve in these countries as well. And this is the main thrust of amny of our arguments to the policy makers - if government policy towards improving the economy using skilled immigration is better in other countries that in the US, then the US is losing some piece of the economic progress pie.
Just my $0.02.
tattoo roberts children 2011.
akred
02-18 07:35 PM
At high levels; I think there should be no quota on employment base.
Glad to see you agree, however I was refuting your justification of a country quota. The point being that the country quota owes its origin to racial considerations and a fixation on protecting levels of European immigration.
I don't know how one would talk to a politician and tell them to increase the quota and then come up with a number and then explain why it should be that number.
In the short term the EB quota should be set to accomodate or exempt anyone who has held a work visa for a period of time (3 years?). This can be pitched as a retention issue as US employers should not lose employees in whom they have made a significant investment. There can be variations on this theme such as requiring that such employees make at least 120% of the prevailing wage for the occupation.
Glad to see you agree, however I was refuting your justification of a country quota. The point being that the country quota owes its origin to racial considerations and a fixation on protecting levels of European immigration.
I don't know how one would talk to a politician and tell them to increase the quota and then come up with a number and then explain why it should be that number.
In the short term the EB quota should be set to accomodate or exempt anyone who has held a work visa for a period of time (3 years?). This can be pitched as a retention issue as US employers should not lose employees in whom they have made a significant investment. There can be variations on this theme such as requiring that such employees make at least 120% of the prevailing wage for the occupation.
more...
pictures Julia Roberts | Dlisted
Legal
07-24 07:10 PM
Have some more comments from Atty Ron. Might be interesting to discuss if already not brought up.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
dresses pictures Julia Roberts#39;
villamonte6100
02-15 12:05 PM
I myself wanted to have my greencard NOW!!!
Unfortunately, I have to wait until there is a visa available.
Whether there is a shortcoming on their law here, as aliens, we should also respect the law just like their citizens.
Congress is the only one who could make changes to their existing laws and if they can't do it, bad luck to us.
Their hands are tied.
USCIS cannot do anything because they are just following the law.
Class action is a very big thing and I've read alot of responses here as if filing for a class action is like going to walmart and complain about a defective item you just bought.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm working for a law firm which gives me some idea how the legal system works.
CLASS ACTION AGAINST USCIS? My god, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Unfortunately, I have to wait until there is a visa available.
Whether there is a shortcoming on their law here, as aliens, we should also respect the law just like their citizens.
Congress is the only one who could make changes to their existing laws and if they can't do it, bad luck to us.
Their hands are tied.
USCIS cannot do anything because they are just following the law.
Class action is a very big thing and I've read alot of responses here as if filing for a class action is like going to walmart and complain about a defective item you just bought.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm working for a law firm which gives me some idea how the legal system works.
CLASS ACTION AGAINST USCIS? My god, you have no idea what you're talking about.
more...
makeup 2011 julia roberts wedding
garybanz
02-15 10:32 AM
Cyrus Mehta would be a very good attorney to consult on this matter, check out http://www.cyrusmehta.com/ for his details.
I had contacted him earlier about the possibility of a class action against per country limits, he gave me a free consultation and basically told me why i did not have a case.
I had contacted him earlier about the possibility of a class action against per country limits, he gave me a free consultation and basically told me why i did not have a case.
girlfriend julia roberts children 2011
coopheal
02-12 04:43 PM
Per country quota sucks big time. DOL/USCIS needs to get rid of it ASAP.
hairstyles Julia Roberts - AND Magazine
johnamit
07-12 04:11 PM
I always has that question what is the real difference, hear people sayinig more taxes less salary and all that but don't know the actual difference yet.
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
jnayar2006
05-10 10:01 PM
The question of immigration to which country is better would probably yield one and the same answer based on the parameters that appear relevant to most people. However, the comparison of immigration processes and systems is an entirely different question - in theory, an employment based immigration system would be a lot better if it is based on correct assumptions. However, an employmet based system that ties an employee to the same job for the duration of the application process, and which requires that the same application processing be redone every time an employee changes jobs, while curtailing the maximum period of time the employee can work in the country is flawed. If the reasoning behind this is that the employee has to show that he/she is indespensible to that one job (with all the highly specific skills that come attached to the job description) which no US citizen/resident is qualified to do, should statistics not show that the majority of positions for which green cards were applied for and obtained have the same employee continuing in that role long after the said employee gets a green card? I would be very surprised if the numbers show that a significant number of employees stick around for any period longer than a year or so in their current, gc-approved roles (and by that, I mean the exact same role for which the GC was applied for - be it with the same company or elsewhere.). In a dynamic market for labor where "skillability" and "learnability" are much more important than current skills and learning, how important is the applicability of a person's current skills to a job that would anyway keep evolving or even changing altogether, during the 6 years of so that a person is employed in that capacity while waiting for the green card?
As long as any amount of faith can be placed on education as an indicator of a person's value to the society, one could contend that a person's level of education and employment *history* (not just the current job) can certainly be used as an excellent proxy for the person's value as an employee to the Nation's economy. Comparing this to the immigration process of Canada etc where the skilled immigrants have not been able to find productive employment commensurate with their titles does not take into account the differences between the two economies. The problem is that skilled immigration and the resultant increase of one factor of production - labor, does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding increase in another extremely important factor of production - entrepreneurship. Over a period of time, though, this will change - the skilled immigrant population of countries like Canada is still relatively young - eventually, with all the other factors of production coming together, and hopefully, with suitable backing via policies that support a good business climate, things will improve in these countries as well. And this is the main thrust of amny of our arguments to the policy makers - if government policy towards improving the economy using skilled immigration is better in other countries that in the US, then the US is losing some piece of the economic progress pie.
Just my $0.02.
As long as any amount of faith can be placed on education as an indicator of a person's value to the society, one could contend that a person's level of education and employment *history* (not just the current job) can certainly be used as an excellent proxy for the person's value as an employee to the Nation's economy. Comparing this to the immigration process of Canada etc where the skilled immigrants have not been able to find productive employment commensurate with their titles does not take into account the differences between the two economies. The problem is that skilled immigration and the resultant increase of one factor of production - labor, does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding increase in another extremely important factor of production - entrepreneurship. Over a period of time, though, this will change - the skilled immigrant population of countries like Canada is still relatively young - eventually, with all the other factors of production coming together, and hopefully, with suitable backing via policies that support a good business climate, things will improve in these countries as well. And this is the main thrust of amny of our arguments to the policy makers - if government policy towards improving the economy using skilled immigration is better in other countries that in the US, then the US is losing some piece of the economic progress pie.
Just my $0.02.
mrajatish
07-11 06:07 PM
I know people who got their GC in 7 months from the date they filed PERM. and then there are many people getting GCs every month. There are both good stories and bad stories to tell about getting GC in US.
There were times when H1 quota never reached the limit during the whole fiscal year, now they get used in just 2 days. This mess in GC process is a result mainly due to our own actions (temporary workers and consulting companies hiring temporary workers). Do you think majority of us once we get GC, stay with the consulting company that filed for our GC? When a consulting company files for PERM, they already have a foreign national working under H-1B in that position. So where is the real intent to hire an American when some foreigner is already working at that position?
This employment based GC is a way for us foreigners to immigrate to US easily at one point. Now due to our extreme usage and abuse of this process, there are genuine people who are being sponsored to immigrate to US are also suffering. In a true employment GC scenario, the company should be desperate to keep you for a long time (more than 6 years after H-1B is maxed) for your valuable skills that they were unable to find in others. But in most GC cases, looks like we temporary workers are more desperate than our employers for the GC? aren't we? Do you see any companies sweating on how to retain you with them, because you H-1B is expiring and they have no way to keep you?
Do not put all the blame on US immigration system, the majority of the blame should fall on us and the companies who are helping us to get GCs when our cases are not based on genuine sponsors.
Do you see any companies sweating on how to retain you with them, because you H-1B is expiring and they have no way to keep you?
This was true in my case at least - my compay worked hard to keep me around when my H1 was expiring.
There were times when H1 quota never reached the limit during the whole fiscal year, now they get used in just 2 days. This mess in GC process is a result mainly due to our own actions (temporary workers and consulting companies hiring temporary workers). Do you think majority of us once we get GC, stay with the consulting company that filed for our GC? When a consulting company files for PERM, they already have a foreign national working under H-1B in that position. So where is the real intent to hire an American when some foreigner is already working at that position?
This employment based GC is a way for us foreigners to immigrate to US easily at one point. Now due to our extreme usage and abuse of this process, there are genuine people who are being sponsored to immigrate to US are also suffering. In a true employment GC scenario, the company should be desperate to keep you for a long time (more than 6 years after H-1B is maxed) for your valuable skills that they were unable to find in others. But in most GC cases, looks like we temporary workers are more desperate than our employers for the GC? aren't we? Do you see any companies sweating on how to retain you with them, because you H-1B is expiring and they have no way to keep you?
Do not put all the blame on US immigration system, the majority of the blame should fall on us and the companies who are helping us to get GCs when our cases are not based on genuine sponsors.
Do you see any companies sweating on how to retain you with them, because you H-1B is expiring and they have no way to keep you?
This was true in my case at least - my compay worked hard to keep me around when my H1 was expiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment