masterji
09-22 09:25 PM
Did you guys have to go through FP for the APs? Will they take FP again even if they have done that before.
wallpaper hair dresses demi lovato in rehab demi lovato 2011 rehab. psa Rehab,
freddyCR
January 5th, 2005, 07:36 AM
Tthanks to all. Lecter those shoots are awsome ! I have never used this technique on portraits, although I see the intention is the same.
I must try it some day.
I just realised about the tilt. And about coloring some other parts...well although aesthetically might be a good idea, it would divert the attention from the main message of the picture, I think.
One other thing, there's a pun in the lettering on the wall; for those of you who don't speak spanish it says :
"FORBIDDEN TO THROW JUNK"
And finally, here's another example of selective coloring of which I'm quite fond. You may have seen it in the gallery...I call it "Enjoy Life". I'd appreciate your input on this, even though it's the same thread.
FREDDY
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/2555enjoy-clouds1_Medium_.jpg
I must try it some day.
I just realised about the tilt. And about coloring some other parts...well although aesthetically might be a good idea, it would divert the attention from the main message of the picture, I think.
One other thing, there's a pun in the lettering on the wall; for those of you who don't speak spanish it says :
"FORBIDDEN TO THROW JUNK"
And finally, here's another example of selective coloring of which I'm quite fond. You may have seen it in the gallery...I call it "Enjoy Life". I'd appreciate your input on this, even though it's the same thread.
FREDDY
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/2555enjoy-clouds1_Medium_.jpg
rkat
12-13 03:46 PM
Swamy - (with due respect to IV who i totally support in every which way!) but what have u done other than joining a state chapter, contributing $$ to IV and holding signs at the DC rally.?? Is this what ur life has come to now..?? Only to motivate people to join IV..?? How long do u plan on conitnuing to do this.?? Wake up buddy..!! Yes we are stuck in this mess now having filed for AOS and the indefinite future wait for cases to be approved..!! There is no doubt about that.
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
2011 tattoo demi lovato 2011 fat
waiting_4_gc
07-27 03:30 PM
You can't write 01/01/1995. In that case your check will be invalidated. Check expires after 180 days. :D :D
But you are correct for RD :)
Umm, what if USCIS takes more than 180 days to encash the checks?
Do we have to re-file the application/re-send the check?:confused:
But you are correct for RD :)
Umm, what if USCIS takes more than 180 days to encash the checks?
Do we have to re-file the application/re-send the check?:confused:
more...
bitu72
09-18 04:10 PM
email me at billrider321@yahoo.com as i do lot of it.
Ann Ruben
02-11 09:30 PM
Hi Euclid,
In my opinion, your situation clearly falls within the "receipt rule". The rec't for replacement of the lost EAD is good for up to 90 days. Below is an excerpt from the the most recent I-9 Handbook for Employers published by USCIS. This pretty clearly differentiates between a rec't for an initial or renewal application and a rec't for an application to replace a lost document.
Ann
Q When can employees present receipts for documents in lieu of actual documents establishing employment authorization?
A The “receipt rule” is designed to cover situations in which an employee is employment autho- rized at the time of initial hire or reverification, but he or she is not in possession of a document listed on page 5 of Form I-9. Receipts showing that a person has applied for an initial grant of employment authorization or for renewal of employment authorization are not acceptable.
An individual may present a receipt in lieu of a document listed on Form I-9 to complete Section 2 of Form I-9.The receipt is valid for a temporary period.There are three different documents that qualify as receipts under the rule:
32
1.
A receipt for a replacement document when the document has been lost, stolen, or damaged.The receipt is valid for 90 days, after which the individual must present the
replacement document to complete Form I-9.
Note: This rule does not apply to individuals who pres- ent receipts for new documents following the expiration of their previously held document.
In my opinion, your situation clearly falls within the "receipt rule". The rec't for replacement of the lost EAD is good for up to 90 days. Below is an excerpt from the the most recent I-9 Handbook for Employers published by USCIS. This pretty clearly differentiates between a rec't for an initial or renewal application and a rec't for an application to replace a lost document.
Ann
Q When can employees present receipts for documents in lieu of actual documents establishing employment authorization?
A The “receipt rule” is designed to cover situations in which an employee is employment autho- rized at the time of initial hire or reverification, but he or she is not in possession of a document listed on page 5 of Form I-9. Receipts showing that a person has applied for an initial grant of employment authorization or for renewal of employment authorization are not acceptable.
An individual may present a receipt in lieu of a document listed on Form I-9 to complete Section 2 of Form I-9.The receipt is valid for a temporary period.There are three different documents that qualify as receipts under the rule:
32
1.
A receipt for a replacement document when the document has been lost, stolen, or damaged.The receipt is valid for 90 days, after which the individual must present the
replacement document to complete Form I-9.
Note: This rule does not apply to individuals who pres- ent receipts for new documents following the expiration of their previously held document.
more...
Riakapoor
09-16 04:10 PM
you can apply for UI - Unemployment insurance, NOT Unemployment benefit. The first is an insurance, the second a benefit that will impact your GC application.
Does that not effect our GC process at all? Do you know the time limit to apply for UI? I mean with in how many days after getting laid off can I apply for UI?
Thanks a ton!
Does that not effect our GC process at all? Do you know the time limit to apply for UI? I mean with in how many days after getting laid off can I apply for UI?
Thanks a ton!
2010 Demi Lovato leaves rehab but
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
ARUNRAMANATHAN
09-14 04:40 PM
Thanks
hair demi lovato 2011 pics
gc28262
01-16 09:42 AM
can we just buy a vacation for the burger king (a.ka. steve king) and ask him to go to bahamas or cancun or somewhere.... so that we can pass the recapture bill....
Maybe we can offer him a horse ride to nowhere. He will get enough time to think about "cruelty to horses".:rolleyes:
Maybe we can offer him a horse ride to nowhere. He will get enough time to think about "cruelty to horses".:rolleyes:
more...
lynchbaby
03-09 01:08 PM
In similar context I have a few questions...
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
hot demi lovato 2011 rehab. demi
ImmigrationAnswerMan
06-29 10:35 PM
The answer is that there are restrictions on using experience gained in the position with the same company. The reason being that you cannot say that the minimum requirement for the position is a BA + 5 when you were hired for the position with less than a BA + 5 experience.
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
more...
house leaving rehab, Demi Lovato
chanduv23
12-21 08:01 AM
What I am saying his employer process pay roll for $5800, he gets in hand after tax deduction.
You guys should understand one thing if your base salary is $1000/k, company should process $8333/pm on a pay roll then pay roll will decide about tax withholdings. There is no way company can show gimmicks and run pay roll for less. I have been working for the past 8 years, all the time companies divided annual salary by biweekly and deposited rest will be taken care by pay roll processing.
Bottom line pay slip should show 8333 not even single penny less for 100k it means you are employer is cheating you.
Try to sort it out with the employer. If employer does not explain, you can change employers, gettiing jobs is not difficult these days. If you think employer has cheated you on wages, contact DOL. But if the wage he mentioned on h1b petition and offer letter is what he is paying to you right now, but he orally agreed to pay you what you think he is paying, then he has conned you. Just be smart and move on, as the employer does not have ethics and "tells lies" to consultants on their salaries, he will face problems in future.
You guys should understand one thing if your base salary is $1000/k, company should process $8333/pm on a pay roll then pay roll will decide about tax withholdings. There is no way company can show gimmicks and run pay roll for less. I have been working for the past 8 years, all the time companies divided annual salary by biweekly and deposited rest will be taken care by pay roll processing.
Bottom line pay slip should show 8333 not even single penny less for 100k it means you are employer is cheating you.
Try to sort it out with the employer. If employer does not explain, you can change employers, gettiing jobs is not difficult these days. If you think employer has cheated you on wages, contact DOL. But if the wage he mentioned on h1b petition and offer letter is what he is paying to you right now, but he orally agreed to pay you what you think he is paying, then he has conned you. Just be smart and move on, as the employer does not have ethics and "tells lies" to consultants on their salaries, he will face problems in future.
tattoo house demi lovato 2011 pics. demi demi lovato 2011 rehab.
sanju
02-16 08:50 AM
1.) The total pay in LCA is most likely for the entire year. If you worked for 6 months, simply divide the LCA per year pay by half and use that as a basis to decide. Since you said that your month-wise wage was higher than the LCA wage, I think you are in safe zone. Did you mean to say that you pay was less than the 1/2 (i.e. for 6 months) of the pay specified in LCA? Please clarify.
2.) You can have an H1 with an employer, but not work with that employer. As long as you were on legal status, maybe on another employer and maintained your legal status, say you were 2nd H1 that was valid, it means your employer doesn't owe you anything as you were not working for him. It doesn't mean that there is any back wage, it just means that you still have valid H1 with him but did not work for him for a duration during which you were maintaining your legal status. As you your employer doesn't owe you back wages.
And since you left your past employer (which could possibly be your future employer), its always good to document that you resigned. You can create a back dated resignation for yourself for your own records, and maybe give a copy of that to your employer. It will help your employer to cover him, and it will complete your records. That should do it for you.
Hope this is helpful.
Hi Everyone,
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
2.) You can have an H1 with an employer, but not work with that employer. As long as you were on legal status, maybe on another employer and maintained your legal status, say you were 2nd H1 that was valid, it means your employer doesn't owe you anything as you were not working for him. It doesn't mean that there is any back wage, it just means that you still have valid H1 with him but did not work for him for a duration during which you were maintaining your legal status. As you your employer doesn't owe you back wages.
And since you left your past employer (which could possibly be your future employer), its always good to document that you resigned. You can create a back dated resignation for yourself for your own records, and maybe give a copy of that to your employer. It will help your employer to cover him, and it will complete your records. That should do it for you.
Hope this is helpful.
Hi Everyone,
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
more...
pictures demi lovato 2011 rehab. demi
pappu
09-14 03:51 PM
call 732-297-9886 and ask questions
dresses Demi Lovato`s first interview
Sakthisagar
09-08 12:10 PM
Ban in private company out sourcing also is very much necessary for USA. These so called multinational companies are minting money and this is not benefitting any one except the higher executives and board of directors of those companies. and of course Politricians.
PS:- If I am in India I will never say that OS is necessary, India should grow on its own pace with her talent and brains. India should have their own economy and techonology and not OS money going around.
Great OH, baan Private OS also.
PS:- If I am in India I will never say that OS is necessary, India should grow on its own pace with her talent and brains. India should have their own economy and techonology and not OS money going around.
Great OH, baan Private OS also.
more...
makeup Post Rehab Demi Lovato: quot;I
Kalidindi
07-26 02:12 PM
Mine was EB2 and am from India
girlfriend demi lovato 2011 rehab.
gc_chahiye
10-02 03:06 PM
I recieved a weired email update from USCIS about the I-140 after RFE documents recived, waited for two days then call the customer service # and the status on the phone said that USCIS denied the case.
here is the case history.
LC-Feb-2005.
I-140 filled march 2007
I-485/EAD filled July-2007
EAD approved/EAD card arrived 15 Sep 2007
I-140 RFE August 2007(A2P)
I-140 denied 27th Sep 2007.
my question is,
what are the options do I have?
my employer is talking about appeal.
since the original I-140 is denied will the 485/EAD will get cancelled too?
is there any way to port the LC date?
what are the chances of appeal/approval?
employer is in good standing(financially).
any suggestions,input will be highly appreciated.
thanks
appeal is the only way out. With the I-140 gone, so is the 485 and EAD at this point.
You cant port the PD (porting PD requires an approved I-140)
here is the case history.
LC-Feb-2005.
I-140 filled march 2007
I-485/EAD filled July-2007
EAD approved/EAD card arrived 15 Sep 2007
I-140 RFE August 2007(A2P)
I-140 denied 27th Sep 2007.
my question is,
what are the options do I have?
my employer is talking about appeal.
since the original I-140 is denied will the 485/EAD will get cancelled too?
is there any way to port the LC date?
what are the chances of appeal/approval?
employer is in good standing(financially).
any suggestions,input will be highly appreciated.
thanks
appeal is the only way out. With the I-140 gone, so is the 485 and EAD at this point.
You cant port the PD (porting PD requires an approved I-140)
hairstyles demi lovato rehab.
mpadapa
08-09 02:30 PM
bump
gc_kaavaali
11-14 04:09 PM
somebody gave red mark...what happened???
godbless
06-29 11:28 AM
Is there any quota on filing the I 140s? My friend requested his employer for upgrading his 140 and he says that the attorney mentioned that the quota for I 140 is already full. I don't think it is right. Any inromation please.
No comments:
Post a Comment