Hi Guys please help me
Yesterday i got my receipt i check the status online the status is saying
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
On August 21, 2007, we rejected your fingerprint fee and mailed you instructions for how to submit the necessary payment. This case is now in suspense.
Please submit your payment with our notice as soon as possible after you receive our notice so we may resume processing of this case.
But USCIS cashed my checks i didn't know what went worng the total amount i paid is 325+70,170,180.
Did any guys get same kind of problem?
Call USCIS on Monday and tell them that they cashed the checks. They should be able to correct the status.
Thanks,
Jayant
Yesterday i got my receipt i check the status online the status is saying
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
On August 21, 2007, we rejected your fingerprint fee and mailed you instructions for how to submit the necessary payment. This case is now in suspense.
Please submit your payment with our notice as soon as possible after you receive our notice so we may resume processing of this case.
But USCIS cashed my checks i didn't know what went worng the total amount i paid is 325+70,170,180.
Did any guys get same kind of problem?
Call USCIS on Monday and tell them that they cashed the checks. They should be able to correct the status.
Thanks,
Jayant
wallpaper tips for dying londe hair
IV community is noting but you and me. IV is a friend. IV is there to help people.
Folks - one must also realize that talking to administration and getting things dione costs a lot of money through advocacy and IV needs a lot of money.
So please be generous enough to contribute to IV - we need a lot of funds in these times when we really needs help
I am not sure how many are there in a similar situation like me. I am pursuing CP and with CP one does not get EAD/AP. In today's economy, it is a nightmare not to have the protection of EAD.
Is there anyway IV can help people in CP queue? Issuing EAD for those CP filers who are already in the US on work VISA - is that even a possibility? I know it is not possible today. The underlying H1B can even be revoked upon issuing EAD. I am not sure about the number of beneficiaries should something like this happen.
Any thoughts?
Folks - one must also realize that talking to administration and getting things dione costs a lot of money through advocacy and IV needs a lot of money.
So please be generous enough to contribute to IV - we need a lot of funds in these times when we really needs help
I am not sure how many are there in a similar situation like me. I am pursuing CP and with CP one does not get EAD/AP. In today's economy, it is a nightmare not to have the protection of EAD.
Is there anyway IV can help people in CP queue? Issuing EAD for those CP filers who are already in the US on work VISA - is that even a possibility? I know it is not possible today. The underlying H1B can even be revoked upon issuing EAD. I am not sure about the number of beneficiaries should something like this happen.
Any thoughts?
There were about 600,000 AOS applications including the July and August filers. So that number less 60,000...roughly about 540,000 applications still pending with USCIS....
applications pending before July/Aug applications, why did they make all CURRENT? I don't think this number is correct. They maybe stuck in FBI Namecheck.
applications pending before July/Aug applications, why did they make all CURRENT? I don't think this number is correct. They maybe stuck in FBI Namecheck.
2011 for long lond. Makeup
Thanks to all the gurus in IV ...last week I was also being abused with these so called repos and i brought it into everyons notice....i'm so happy to see u guys taking step against them despite of ur busy schedule. thanks once again.
Interpretation of a rule or law is not absolute but in context. Your lawyer seems to have forgotten that and is generalizing a ruling.
What has the ruling said: There will be an audit for business necessity if the job requirements exceed the Zone requirements the job is in.
IT occupations include various senior level positions too which require several years of work experience and advanced degree. As long as the sponsoring company is able to prove that they need a person having those qualifications/skills the labor is likely to be approved under EB2.
Non-IT Masters degrees do not automatically come under EB2 either, as one of the members thinks it will. If that is truly the case, then the DOL might be soon looking at a lawsuit challenging the premise that non-IT occupations are somehow more demanding and require more preparation and experience, which warrants that it be placed in EB2.
What has the ruling said: There will be an audit for business necessity if the job requirements exceed the Zone requirements the job is in.
IT occupations include various senior level positions too which require several years of work experience and advanced degree. As long as the sponsoring company is able to prove that they need a person having those qualifications/skills the labor is likely to be approved under EB2.
Non-IT Masters degrees do not automatically come under EB2 either, as one of the members thinks it will. If that is truly the case, then the DOL might be soon looking at a lawsuit challenging the premise that non-IT occupations are somehow more demanding and require more preparation and experience, which warrants that it be placed in EB2.
Is there any conflict between 'India being great' and your 'GC application'? Its really not a smart thing to say that you missed it on purpose when your name is 'PERMFILING', you have 'EB2 in process' and you appealed on your EB1 application. :D:D:D
I missed the train too.. I guess we missed on purpose which is we make RICH in our own country in the future
Business as Usual. They are minting (milking) money with other services.
Damn H1, GC,#$%#$%$%$%^%$^
All MNC's are flocking to INDIA lately. I think I am sitting on the wrong continent :-)
Quotes on INDIA:
a is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend and the great grand mother of tradition.” - American Writer and Humorist Mark Twain
“If there is one place on the face of earth where all dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India.” - French scholar Romain Rolland
“India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.” - Hu Shih (Former Chinese ambassador to USA, referring to the entry of Buddhism into China. Buddhism was born in ancient India).
So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked.”- Mark Twain
“In India I found a race of mortals living upon the Earth. but not adhering to it. Inhabiting cities, but not being fixed to them, possessing everything but possessed by nothing.”- Apollonius Tyanaeus, Greek Thinker and Traveller 1st Century AD
“Bear in mind that the commerce of India is the commerce of the world and … he who can exclusively command it is the dictator of Europe.”- Peter the Great of Russia [LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GETTING THERE WITH IT]
EB2- 10/05
EB1 EA Appeal pending
I missed the train too.. I guess we missed on purpose which is we make RICH in our own country in the future
Business as Usual. They are minting (milking) money with other services.
Damn H1, GC,#$%#$%$%$%^%$^
All MNC's are flocking to INDIA lately. I think I am sitting on the wrong continent :-)
Quotes on INDIA:
a is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend and the great grand mother of tradition.” - American Writer and Humorist Mark Twain
“If there is one place on the face of earth where all dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India.” - French scholar Romain Rolland
“India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.” - Hu Shih (Former Chinese ambassador to USA, referring to the entry of Buddhism into China. Buddhism was born in ancient India).
So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked.”- Mark Twain
“In India I found a race of mortals living upon the Earth. but not adhering to it. Inhabiting cities, but not being fixed to them, possessing everything but possessed by nothing.”- Apollonius Tyanaeus, Greek Thinker and Traveller 1st Century AD
“Bear in mind that the commerce of India is the commerce of the world and … he who can exclusively command it is the dictator of Europe.”- Peter the Great of Russia [LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GETTING THERE WITH IT]
EB2- 10/05
EB1 EA Appeal pending
Thank you Hermione (Granger?)
What about salary requirements? would it be okay if I get 20-30% lower
salary? Do I have to be getting paychecks every month?
1. Get a job with same description
2. Get at least the salary mentioned in your LCA
Please check with attorney's before you make that decision.
- goodluck
What about salary requirements? would it be okay if I get 20-30% lower
salary? Do I have to be getting paychecks every month?
1. Get a job with same description
2. Get at least the salary mentioned in your LCA
Please check with attorney's before you make that decision.
- goodluck
2010 Blonde-Hair Tips From Blake
7th year extension was instituted as part of AC21 - which was a major immigration package backed by the tech industry (somewhat like SKIL) including the provision to increase H1-B quota to 195K. Point being unless there is some powerful godfather for such a bill - whether it is big business or the pro-illegal alien lobby , congress is not going to prioritize some piecemeal legislation just to give us relief. Right now the tech industry is pushing hard for SKIL while the illegal alien lobby is pushing hard for CIR. Our best hope is to ride either of these bills .. and I am sure core team is always on the lookout for any other bills that we can possibly hitch on to. Just that its not all that easy to do.
I think it was Collin Powell that help passed the 7th year extension and one year extensions there on if LC is pending for a year..this was passed since there was a crisis with delay in LC adjudications....so we are at a point that we need such a relief soon...we are heading towards such a crisis point..soon...
I think it was Collin Powell that help passed the 7th year extension and one year extensions there on if LC is pending for a year..this was passed since there was a crisis with delay in LC adjudications....so we are at a point that we need such a relief soon...we are heading towards such a crisis point..soon...
I think this rule would be pretty controversial with the diversity restrictions that US expects.
So, why there is country limit just on GC quota, if they want diversity it should be on H1/L1 visas as well...this is why we are seeing backlog of more then 5yrs in GC. It is not diversity they want it is called discrimination :eek:
So, why there is country limit just on GC quota, if they want diversity it should be on H1/L1 visas as well...this is why we are seeing backlog of more then 5yrs in GC. It is not diversity they want it is called discrimination :eek:
hair Blonde Hair With Dyed Tips.
Recently I spoke a IO at NSC and she specifically told me that the local office does not see if its assigned to an officer or not. All they see is what room it is in. Ironically, the rooms names are like name of a person.
So it may not be with an IO realistically. The infopass information may not be the best answers you get.
So it may not be with an IO realistically. The infopass information may not be the best answers you get.
its obvious that everyone of us is interested in seeing this change.
With the recent campaigns (flower, signature) success, should we have one more for this too?
With the recent campaigns (flower, signature) success, should we have one more for this too?
hot Hair Tips from a Celebrity
Its true.. Unless you want to change Lawyer.
house londe girl with blue eyes.
As long as you show that your job is atleast 50% different from the previous within the same company, you can use the experience from the current employer. You dont need to be promoted or move to business development.
You can use the 5 years exp from current employer. But the new position itself should require 5 years exp to qualify for EB2. File your PERM then when you file you 140, include your previous approved EB3 140 with the older PD and ask to port the PD. Then when USCIS will approve your 140, it should have the correct EB2 cat and older PD(from EB3 app).
Thats all. I was able to recapture my PD but I had a Master's degree. The only issue was that I graduated AFTER I joined my long time employer. So in the old RIR world you could not use that but PERM relaxed/cleared up the 'graduation' issue and we filed for a new EB2 application. In your case you will use your 5 years exp to qualify for EB2 rather than Masters.
The process is tedious but rewarding at the end. Hopefully your corporate lawyers will help you in this. A lot depends on your company and your supervisor, they need to be motivated.
You can use the 5 years exp from current employer. But the new position itself should require 5 years exp to qualify for EB2. File your PERM then when you file you 140, include your previous approved EB3 140 with the older PD and ask to port the PD. Then when USCIS will approve your 140, it should have the correct EB2 cat and older PD(from EB3 app).
Thats all. I was able to recapture my PD but I had a Master's degree. The only issue was that I graduated AFTER I joined my long time employer. So in the old RIR world you could not use that but PERM relaxed/cleared up the 'graduation' issue and we filed for a new EB2 application. In your case you will use your 5 years exp to qualify for EB2 rather than Masters.
The process is tedious but rewarding at the end. Hopefully your corporate lawyers will help you in this. A lot depends on your company and your supervisor, they need to be motivated.
tattoo 2011 rown hair dyed tips.
As some of you know that I don't really post on IV after the belittling of my posts and stand regarding F1 visas and support to Mr , I was asked by another IV loyalist friend who felt it was relevant I shared a letter I had sent to Mr. E Gonzalez over email yesterday as learnt of this issue yesterday.
Dear Mr. Gonzalez
I wanted to thank you for the announcement that has brought relief for many of us it is still the beginning of our fight for better processes and improved and updated laws for employment based green cards. I still don't see the light at the end of the tunnel with so many pending applications. I have already been 3 years in the process and my lawyers think I would be out for another 2 if not 3 after having gained premier advanced education from the US. The reasons are many fold. Some are process delays related and some due to statutory guidelines per the legislations. I wanted to document a few issues that if resolved can bring in a lot a relief. Also, I need to introduce you to an issue I was made aware of by a close friend who was surprisingly unhappy with yesterday's announcement.
Process delays on the part of USCIS have caused many delays in employment based visas to be issued. And based on how annual caps are counted and met, many EB based visas have been lost. (~500,000 in the last few years per the Ombudsman's office i.e. almost 4 years worth of visas). This has created a chicken and an egg problem. Because of the USCIS delays, the visa numbers have cumulatively got lost and there is no way to recapture them without a legislation change. No one seems to address the former issue. The Congress does not really have anything planned for the recapture to happen. As a result the 4 year backlog will become 5 and 5 will become 6 and so on. Not only are skilled workers left frustrated with stagnant careers, they are also left unheard and asked to look at other greener pastures outside of the US. This is hurting the US economy in many ways but one. Employers such as Microsoft are unable to retain people and therefore opening offices offshore - this will only promote job off shoring that middle class America is most worried about. Action needs to be taken on the part of the USCIS and Congress; else this situation will have ripple effects for many years to come that may reshape the American Society - more in negative ways than positive.
The next issue I wanted to discuss was something even crueler. Apparently people have been fighting for this issue from 1990 under many organizations with Unitefamilies.org being most active. Under the current legislation, a non immigrant long term visa holder such as F1, H1, L1, J1, etc. are allowed to immediately get their families (spouses and children) on similar dependent categories like F4, H4, etc. Also Green Card applicants can add the names of their spouses and children on their AOS applications (I-145) easily and create a primary-derivative pending application. But a Green Card holder who wishes to marry someone can not get his/ her spouse in the United States for over 6 years. The current legislation allows immediate family members such as spouse and children of citizens to be in the country in around 6 to 9 months but not so much for the permanent resident (PR). This leaves the PR holder with one of two options: live without family for 6 years or move with the family back to another country. The former is resulting in many broken families and against the American history that promotes family values. The latter is not feasible because PR laws require Green Card holders to be in the US for over 6 months a year to maintain the PR status. Is this really what our lawmakers want us to live with - 2 choices that change people's life for the worst?
On further understanding of the issue, I realize that legislation change is needed to allow reuniting families. This needs to be sorted out, I want the lawmakers to consider people who became PRs through an H1 or L1 employment route be given the benefit of getting their families more easily since they had those benefits when on the Non-Immigrant Visa. Then why stop a permanent resident from being with his/ her family? The lawmakers may be concerned that allowing all Green card holders to do so will increase the misuse of this option and promote marriages of convenience; but the beneficiaries through employment category should be allowed because they could avail of it while in the pending state in any case. This needs a legislation change and may address a big chunk of the issue at hand.
The one last scenario that I feel is a no brainier and needs no legislation change but more of a USCIS policy change is very straight forward and it becomes more relevant in this age of retrogression. This is the reason why my friend was unhappy and I have a feeling I may end up in this situation too and therefore will use myself as an example:
Based on yesterday's announcement I apply for my AOS. As mentioned in earlier emails the benefits of the AOS pending let me come out a of a stagnant career path. I am single and 30 years old. Since I do not have a wife, my application has no derivative. 2 months down the line I find the love of my life and get married in 3-4 months - before my AOS has been approved. Now I want to have my wife get the benefit of the AOS as well such that I can get her the Green Card too - to avoid the 6 year waiting time she will have if I apply after I get approved. But by then the retrogression dates move back again and my PD is not current anymore. Per the current USCIS process one can not apply for AOS if the date is not current. That process is also extrapolated to derivative applicants where the primary is pending and therefore the derivative has to wait for the dates to get current. The problem with this issue is that because no one has visibility into how USCIS approves application the primary may get approved as soon as the dates become current before the derivative could apply for the AOS. The derivative will not be able to apply for AOS and will have to go back of the country and wait outside for 6 years to file using the other path. Even though the marriage took place before the primary got approved but a process guideline prevents the derivative to apply. This is a very cruel process for people who are about to get married but do not want to risk a broken family and are delaying filing their AOS even though the visa bulletin allows them to. God knows when this window will open again. My friend has to choose between filing his own AOS or marriage. A simple process update can help us fix this situation. While the USCIS and people are still debating allowing filing of 485s with retrogressed PDs, this is a side issue that is recommending allowing filing of 485 for derivatives ASAP (instead of waiting for the primary's PD to become current again) if the 485 of the primary is already pending to avoid long waiting years for a couple to be together.
After hearing this issue, I am worried. My AOS was sent on Jul 2 and I am considering getting married by October. My PD is Dec 2004 EB2 India and may stay retrogressed for sometime. Per current process I will not be able to add my wife until my PD becomes current again and fear that my GC might get approved before I could do that...Ironically I am praying for a delay in my approval just so that I can build a family. This does not need a legislation change but a process review and change by the USCIS. This will help reduce the confusion on interfiled application and also reduce the strain on the 5-6 years of follow-on green cards.
Please feel free to contact me to further understand this issue. Read the following complicated analysis attorney Murthy has laid out to explain this situation: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_retspo.html
Thanks
Gautam
Dear Mr. Gonzalez
I wanted to thank you for the announcement that has brought relief for many of us it is still the beginning of our fight for better processes and improved and updated laws for employment based green cards. I still don't see the light at the end of the tunnel with so many pending applications. I have already been 3 years in the process and my lawyers think I would be out for another 2 if not 3 after having gained premier advanced education from the US. The reasons are many fold. Some are process delays related and some due to statutory guidelines per the legislations. I wanted to document a few issues that if resolved can bring in a lot a relief. Also, I need to introduce you to an issue I was made aware of by a close friend who was surprisingly unhappy with yesterday's announcement.
Process delays on the part of USCIS have caused many delays in employment based visas to be issued. And based on how annual caps are counted and met, many EB based visas have been lost. (~500,000 in the last few years per the Ombudsman's office i.e. almost 4 years worth of visas). This has created a chicken and an egg problem. Because of the USCIS delays, the visa numbers have cumulatively got lost and there is no way to recapture them without a legislation change. No one seems to address the former issue. The Congress does not really have anything planned for the recapture to happen. As a result the 4 year backlog will become 5 and 5 will become 6 and so on. Not only are skilled workers left frustrated with stagnant careers, they are also left unheard and asked to look at other greener pastures outside of the US. This is hurting the US economy in many ways but one. Employers such as Microsoft are unable to retain people and therefore opening offices offshore - this will only promote job off shoring that middle class America is most worried about. Action needs to be taken on the part of the USCIS and Congress; else this situation will have ripple effects for many years to come that may reshape the American Society - more in negative ways than positive.
The next issue I wanted to discuss was something even crueler. Apparently people have been fighting for this issue from 1990 under many organizations with Unitefamilies.org being most active. Under the current legislation, a non immigrant long term visa holder such as F1, H1, L1, J1, etc. are allowed to immediately get their families (spouses and children) on similar dependent categories like F4, H4, etc. Also Green Card applicants can add the names of their spouses and children on their AOS applications (I-145) easily and create a primary-derivative pending application. But a Green Card holder who wishes to marry someone can not get his/ her spouse in the United States for over 6 years. The current legislation allows immediate family members such as spouse and children of citizens to be in the country in around 6 to 9 months but not so much for the permanent resident (PR). This leaves the PR holder with one of two options: live without family for 6 years or move with the family back to another country. The former is resulting in many broken families and against the American history that promotes family values. The latter is not feasible because PR laws require Green Card holders to be in the US for over 6 months a year to maintain the PR status. Is this really what our lawmakers want us to live with - 2 choices that change people's life for the worst?
On further understanding of the issue, I realize that legislation change is needed to allow reuniting families. This needs to be sorted out, I want the lawmakers to consider people who became PRs through an H1 or L1 employment route be given the benefit of getting their families more easily since they had those benefits when on the Non-Immigrant Visa. Then why stop a permanent resident from being with his/ her family? The lawmakers may be concerned that allowing all Green card holders to do so will increase the misuse of this option and promote marriages of convenience; but the beneficiaries through employment category should be allowed because they could avail of it while in the pending state in any case. This needs a legislation change and may address a big chunk of the issue at hand.
The one last scenario that I feel is a no brainier and needs no legislation change but more of a USCIS policy change is very straight forward and it becomes more relevant in this age of retrogression. This is the reason why my friend was unhappy and I have a feeling I may end up in this situation too and therefore will use myself as an example:
Based on yesterday's announcement I apply for my AOS. As mentioned in earlier emails the benefits of the AOS pending let me come out a of a stagnant career path. I am single and 30 years old. Since I do not have a wife, my application has no derivative. 2 months down the line I find the love of my life and get married in 3-4 months - before my AOS has been approved. Now I want to have my wife get the benefit of the AOS as well such that I can get her the Green Card too - to avoid the 6 year waiting time she will have if I apply after I get approved. But by then the retrogression dates move back again and my PD is not current anymore. Per the current USCIS process one can not apply for AOS if the date is not current. That process is also extrapolated to derivative applicants where the primary is pending and therefore the derivative has to wait for the dates to get current. The problem with this issue is that because no one has visibility into how USCIS approves application the primary may get approved as soon as the dates become current before the derivative could apply for the AOS. The derivative will not be able to apply for AOS and will have to go back of the country and wait outside for 6 years to file using the other path. Even though the marriage took place before the primary got approved but a process guideline prevents the derivative to apply. This is a very cruel process for people who are about to get married but do not want to risk a broken family and are delaying filing their AOS even though the visa bulletin allows them to. God knows when this window will open again. My friend has to choose between filing his own AOS or marriage. A simple process update can help us fix this situation. While the USCIS and people are still debating allowing filing of 485s with retrogressed PDs, this is a side issue that is recommending allowing filing of 485 for derivatives ASAP (instead of waiting for the primary's PD to become current again) if the 485 of the primary is already pending to avoid long waiting years for a couple to be together.
After hearing this issue, I am worried. My AOS was sent on Jul 2 and I am considering getting married by October. My PD is Dec 2004 EB2 India and may stay retrogressed for sometime. Per current process I will not be able to add my wife until my PD becomes current again and fear that my GC might get approved before I could do that...Ironically I am praying for a delay in my approval just so that I can build a family. This does not need a legislation change but a process review and change by the USCIS. This will help reduce the confusion on interfiled application and also reduce the strain on the 5-6 years of follow-on green cards.
Please feel free to contact me to further understand this issue. Read the following complicated analysis attorney Murthy has laid out to explain this situation: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_retspo.html
Thanks
Gautam
pictures A full head of londe hair
immigration related frequently asked questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/FREQUENTLY_ASKED_QUESTIONS)
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/FREQUENTLY_ASKED_QUESTIONS)
dresses londe with long hair and
Please search for "visa bulletin" in google news. It will show the full aticle.
Postinf the full article may create leagal issues for IV due to copyright issues.
Postinf the full article may create leagal issues for IV due to copyright issues.
makeup Brilliant Blonde Hair Color:
Stop advertising a lawyer. I find him very speculative. He wants everyone to come to his site and you are falling for it.
girlfriend Hair Growing Tips - Great Hair
True, Savage is not for us. He is unpredictable as someone mentioned above. Today, he was quoting from an article which mentioned about immigrationvoice. He was reading the plight of some Mahesh ... . He said to go to home country. All H1B's came on a big lie. Oracle who is lobbying for H1and Mr Gates are all greedy etc. He was going on and on.
First, ask HIM to go back where he came from in 1939-1945 during Nazi regime. This land is not owned by anybody, this is a LAND OF IMMIGRANTS. No one is native anyway, so what the heck !!
First, ask HIM to go back where he came from in 1939-1945 during Nazi regime. This land is not owned by anybody, this is a LAND OF IMMIGRANTS. No one is native anyway, so what the heck !!
hairstyles londe hair is something
Hi breddy2000:
Thanks for your reply and was RFE similar to mine?
Here is content of RFE:
Exact RFE text is:
1. Software consultants: The evidence indicates that the petitioner is engaged in the business of software development and computer consulting and is seeking the beneficiary�s services as computer programmer/analyst. However, the record does not show whether the petitioner is the actual employer of acting as an agent who arranges short-term employment for workers who are traditionally self-employed. As such, the evidence is insufficient to establish whether a specialty occupation exists for the beneficiary; and whether there was a bonafide job offer at the time of filing. USCIS must examine the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as specialty occupation. Please clarify the petitioner�s employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary and provide evidence as follows:
A. Petitioner as the employer: If the petitioner is the employing entity, it must establish that it will hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of the beneficiary. Evidence must be provided that establishes a specialty occupation position actually exists at the petitioner�s business location and that there is an employer-employee relationship. If the beneficiary will perform some work for clients outside the petitioner�s work site, evidence must be provided of the conditions of employment.
B. Petitioner as an Agent performing the function of an Employer: If the petitioner is an agent acting as the employer, it must guarantee the wages and other terms and conditions of employment through a contractual agreement with the beneficiary, and provide an itinerary of definite employment. The petitioner must establish that a specialty occupation position actually exists and that the beneficiary�s work will be under the control of the petitioner.
C. Petitioner is an Agent acting as a Representative for Multiple Employers: If the petitioner is acting as the representative for multiple employers, the terms and conditions of the employment for each of those employers must be explained and supported with an itinerary of definite employment. Copies of contracts between the employers and the beneficiary would further substantiate the petitioner�s claim of qualifying employment.
Depending on the petitioner�s employment circumstances, the evidence may include but is not limited to:
a. a description of conditions of employment, such as contracts of letters from authorized officials of the ultimate client companies, listing salary of wages paid, hours worked, benefits, a brief description of who will supervise the beneficiary and their duties, or any other related evidence;
b. contractual agreements, statements of work, work orders, service agreements letters from authorized officials of the ultimate client companies where the work will actually be performed, that provide a comprehensive description of the beneficiary�s proposed duties;
Note: Providing evidence of work to be performed for other consultants or employment agencies who provide consulting or employment services to other companies may not be sufficient. The evidence should show specialty occupation work with the actual client-company where the work will ultimately be performed.
c. an itinerary that specifies the dates of each service of engagement, the names and address of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time that the temporary employment is requested;
d. copies of the petitioner�s present and past job vacancy announcements; classified advertisements soliciting for the current position, showing educational requirements, and the conditions of employment;
e. documentary examples of the petitioner�s products or services (e.g. copies of: business plans, reports, presentations, evaluations, recommendations, critical reviews, promotional materials, advertisements, designs, blueprints, newspaper articles, website text, news copy, photographs of prototypes, etc. presented in an 8 - x 11 inch format);
f. documentation of past employment practices showing H-1B employees routinely met conditions of employment, including full or part-time hours, and that the petitioner always fully pay their workers throughout the time periods requested. List of all non-immigrant employees and provide the receipt numbers for their approved petitions (e.g. WAC____).
g. Any other documents of appendices that petitioner feels will substantiate sufficient qualifying employment.
Thanks
Thanks for your reply and was RFE similar to mine?
Here is content of RFE:
Exact RFE text is:
1. Software consultants: The evidence indicates that the petitioner is engaged in the business of software development and computer consulting and is seeking the beneficiary�s services as computer programmer/analyst. However, the record does not show whether the petitioner is the actual employer of acting as an agent who arranges short-term employment for workers who are traditionally self-employed. As such, the evidence is insufficient to establish whether a specialty occupation exists for the beneficiary; and whether there was a bonafide job offer at the time of filing. USCIS must examine the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as specialty occupation. Please clarify the petitioner�s employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary and provide evidence as follows:
A. Petitioner as the employer: If the petitioner is the employing entity, it must establish that it will hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of the beneficiary. Evidence must be provided that establishes a specialty occupation position actually exists at the petitioner�s business location and that there is an employer-employee relationship. If the beneficiary will perform some work for clients outside the petitioner�s work site, evidence must be provided of the conditions of employment.
B. Petitioner as an Agent performing the function of an Employer: If the petitioner is an agent acting as the employer, it must guarantee the wages and other terms and conditions of employment through a contractual agreement with the beneficiary, and provide an itinerary of definite employment. The petitioner must establish that a specialty occupation position actually exists and that the beneficiary�s work will be under the control of the petitioner.
C. Petitioner is an Agent acting as a Representative for Multiple Employers: If the petitioner is acting as the representative for multiple employers, the terms and conditions of the employment for each of those employers must be explained and supported with an itinerary of definite employment. Copies of contracts between the employers and the beneficiary would further substantiate the petitioner�s claim of qualifying employment.
Depending on the petitioner�s employment circumstances, the evidence may include but is not limited to:
a. a description of conditions of employment, such as contracts of letters from authorized officials of the ultimate client companies, listing salary of wages paid, hours worked, benefits, a brief description of who will supervise the beneficiary and their duties, or any other related evidence;
b. contractual agreements, statements of work, work orders, service agreements letters from authorized officials of the ultimate client companies where the work will actually be performed, that provide a comprehensive description of the beneficiary�s proposed duties;
Note: Providing evidence of work to be performed for other consultants or employment agencies who provide consulting or employment services to other companies may not be sufficient. The evidence should show specialty occupation work with the actual client-company where the work will ultimately be performed.
c. an itinerary that specifies the dates of each service of engagement, the names and address of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time that the temporary employment is requested;
d. copies of the petitioner�s present and past job vacancy announcements; classified advertisements soliciting for the current position, showing educational requirements, and the conditions of employment;
e. documentary examples of the petitioner�s products or services (e.g. copies of: business plans, reports, presentations, evaluations, recommendations, critical reviews, promotional materials, advertisements, designs, blueprints, newspaper articles, website text, news copy, photographs of prototypes, etc. presented in an 8 - x 11 inch format);
f. documentation of past employment practices showing H-1B employees routinely met conditions of employment, including full or part-time hours, and that the petitioner always fully pay their workers throughout the time periods requested. List of all non-immigrant employees and provide the receipt numbers for their approved petitions (e.g. WAC____).
g. Any other documents of appendices that petitioner feels will substantiate sufficient qualifying employment.
Thanks
I really like these ideas and strongly feel that this would work. I myself have just now decided to take upon me to register at least 6 members by next week. Core members give a thought abt these ideas. Also put up a request on the registration page to spread the word and get at least two other people registered.
As I am writing, I understand there are 1900 active members and 5800 members. Even if 50% of the members bring one new member each, there will be a tremendous increase. And this can be done via internet: web and emails. Set a target (50% increase?),deadline (Oct 31st?) and have weekly count of new additions displayed prominently. Democrats did that for Howard Dean's campaign and the model has been used for subsequent elections by both the parties..
IV core had been very voiceferous, when we needed to achieve the funding target in summer. Can they become more involved chalking out a plan to
increase membership, if that really matters? In the membership enrollment form, if there is a field asking if some old members brought the applicant in, then we would know how many old ones really care to do something. Without personal outreach and contact, the rate of new additions will never increase.
Are we upto this?
As I am writing, I understand there are 1900 active members and 5800 members. Even if 50% of the members bring one new member each, there will be a tremendous increase. And this can be done via internet: web and emails. Set a target (50% increase?),deadline (Oct 31st?) and have weekly count of new additions displayed prominently. Democrats did that for Howard Dean's campaign and the model has been used for subsequent elections by both the parties..
IV core had been very voiceferous, when we needed to achieve the funding target in summer. Can they become more involved chalking out a plan to
increase membership, if that really matters? In the membership enrollment form, if there is a field asking if some old members brought the applicant in, then we would know how many old ones really care to do something. Without personal outreach and contact, the rate of new additions will never increase.
Are we upto this?
I second to CC123. I had G-28 on everything. I got the EAD and AP directly. However, I did not get any original receipt notices from USCIS. My lawyer got the all original receipt notices.
In our case got EAD directly, but AP went to Lawyer.
In our case got EAD directly, but AP went to Lawyer.
