sweet_jungle
12-04 02:15 PM
Interesting, looks like all these cases got approved ??
This year in August, most of the WAC I-485 cases were given an unfair beating and were largely neglected in the approvals. Most of these cases are not current now but many will become again next year. So, based on this year's experience, we need to prepare so that we do not again get beaten up. By WAC I-485 cases, I mean cases filed in July 2007 in NSC but were receipted at CSC and sent back to NSC. In g neral, it applies to all cases which were transferred between centers
There were mainly 2 issues faced:
1) Biometrics for these cases do not get attached to file. Reason is when we do the biometrics, the results are sent to CSC because the case number starts with WAC. The results do not automatically get transmitted to NSC. Most of us had to make phone calls to make it happen. By that time, precious time was lost and the visa numbers got over.
The issue will now again come up as most of our fingerprints are approaching 15 month expiry. So, when we again do biometrics in the next few months, the results will remain stuck at CSC.When in July/August in 2009 , we will become current again, our cases will not get picked due to lack of biometrics. So, how do we go about fixing the problem? Writing to ombudsman? I am looking for suggestions. I did write to ombudsman and got some standard response.
2) Second issue faced was inability to file service requests. Even though processing dates were more than 30 days from receipt date, the system was not allowing filing of SRs as it was taking the reps. to CSC 485 processing times which are stuck at 2006. This is totally unfair and if a LIN person is able to file SR we should get the same right. True, SRs often invoke some useless response. But, if PD and RD are current, it can be quite useful.
So, I am asking for suggestions for tacking the above problems so that we can be prepared for next year. The time to act is now.
This year in August, most of the WAC I-485 cases were given an unfair beating and were largely neglected in the approvals. Most of these cases are not current now but many will become again next year. So, based on this year's experience, we need to prepare so that we do not again get beaten up. By WAC I-485 cases, I mean cases filed in July 2007 in NSC but were receipted at CSC and sent back to NSC. In g neral, it applies to all cases which were transferred between centers
There were mainly 2 issues faced:
1) Biometrics for these cases do not get attached to file. Reason is when we do the biometrics, the results are sent to CSC because the case number starts with WAC. The results do not automatically get transmitted to NSC. Most of us had to make phone calls to make it happen. By that time, precious time was lost and the visa numbers got over.
The issue will now again come up as most of our fingerprints are approaching 15 month expiry. So, when we again do biometrics in the next few months, the results will remain stuck at CSC.When in July/August in 2009 , we will become current again, our cases will not get picked due to lack of biometrics. So, how do we go about fixing the problem? Writing to ombudsman? I am looking for suggestions. I did write to ombudsman and got some standard response.
2) Second issue faced was inability to file service requests. Even though processing dates were more than 30 days from receipt date, the system was not allowing filing of SRs as it was taking the reps. to CSC 485 processing times which are stuck at 2006. This is totally unfair and if a LIN person is able to file SR we should get the same right. True, SRs often invoke some useless response. But, if PD and RD are current, it can be quite useful.
So, I am asking for suggestions for tacking the above problems so that we can be prepared for next year. The time to act is now.
wallpaper more.
webm
12-17 02:35 PM
2001 - dot com bubble burst;
2008 - finance bubble burst;
.
Well said..:D
2008 - finance bubble burst;
.
Well said..:D
mariusp
07-14 12:29 PM
Could be a DV case, could be family based, could be immediate family, could be anything. In fact EB cases are only about 200k out of 1,2 mil GCs issued last year (see immigration-law.com for a recent statistic). Backlogged does not mean unavailable.
i don't know if its an EB 485, but even FB are very backloged.
i don't know if its an EB 485, but even FB are very backloged.
2011 Cut out the paper using your
Picasa
01-22 01:16 PM
I have an NRI home loan from the ICICI bank. I have been making the payment using my ICICI NRE account (via transferring money using ICICI Money2India service).
They have been charging me higher rates on the home loan also they do not give good conversion rate for the $ on the top of that they charge various fees & they held the $ transfer for week to give the lowest possible rate.
Anyway so, I decided to pay off the entire amount. I spoke to one of their bank officer that I want to pay off the entire loan and to my surprise I was told that I have to pay 2% fee for early payment of the loan.
I am wondering if some one else is also in the same boat & give me some advise how to save some money as money is really tight in this economy.
Thanks
They have been charging me higher rates on the home loan also they do not give good conversion rate for the $ on the top of that they charge various fees & they held the $ transfer for week to give the lowest possible rate.
Anyway so, I decided to pay off the entire amount. I spoke to one of their bank officer that I want to pay off the entire loan and to my surprise I was told that I have to pay 2% fee for early payment of the loan.
I am wondering if some one else is also in the same boat & give me some advise how to save some money as money is really tight in this economy.
Thanks
more...
sku
02-25 01:53 PM
This is the News Letter That I got from my attorney.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TARP Restricts H-1B Hiring for Funds Recipients
The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) recently signed into law by President Obama places strict limits on recipients of funds or certain Federal Reserve loans that want to hire high-skilled workers under the H-1B visa program for a period of two years. TARP fund recipients include certain financial institutions as well as infrastructure, energy, and automobile companies. The bill subjects recipients of TARP funds to the same rules that an "H-1B dependent" employer must follow when it sponsors a new H-1B worker. (An H-1B dependent employer is one that has 15% or more H-1B workers in the employer's total full-time workforce.) These rules include:
� The employer cannot displace any similarly-employed U.S. worker with an H-1B worker within 90 days before or after applying for H-1B status for a new employee.
� The employer cannot place any H-1B worker at an outside worksite unless that employer first makes a "bona fide" inquiry as to whether the other employer has displaced or will displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before or after the placement of the H-1B worker.
� The employer has to take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job opening, at wages at least equal to those offered to the H-1B worker. The employer must offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker.
TARP contains provisions that may effectively limit recipients of TARP funds and Federal Reserve loans from sponsoring new H-1B workers. While H-1B dependency rules do not normally apply to H-1B workers earning at least $60,000 annually or possessing a Master's degree, these exemptions are not available to the TARP/Federal Reserve loan recipients.
The exact language of the bill states that the above requirements apply to "new employees" sponsored for H-1B status. While additional guidance may be issued from the Department of Labor, the plain language of the bill suggests that a company filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a current employee who is working with the company under F-1 Optional Practical Training, TN status, or some other work visa, should not be subject to the "H-1B dependent" rules. Similarly, the additional restrictions should not apply to petitions for extension of H-1B status for a current employee. However, an employer filing an H-1B change of employer petition for a new employee likely would be subject to these requirements.
The House-Senate Conference Committee removed a provision from the stimulus proposal that would have required recipients of TARP funds to enroll and participate in the E-Verify online employment eligibility verification program, as well as a provision that would have renewed the currently voluntary E-Verify program for an additional five years. E-Verify is currently set to expire in March 2009.
Effective Date of New Form I-9 Delayed Until April 3, 2009
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is extending the effective date of its new Form I-9 from February 2, 2009 to April 3, 2009. The new Form I-9 updates the list of documents acceptable for employment eligibility verification. The temporary extension will provide DHS with an opportunity for further consideration of this rule. DHS also is extending the comment period for this rule for 30 days.
Rising Unemployment May Affect PERM Processing
In a recent meeting between the Department of Labor (DOL) and representatives of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, DOL stated that rising unemployment may affect the processing of certain PERM labor certification applications. DOL is trying to integrate labor market information from various sources, such as WARN Act notices, to determine the availability of U.S. workers in areas affected by significant layoffs. DOL cited the position of Financial Analyst located in New York City as an example of a particular occupation and location where there might be qualified U.S. workers available due to recent financial industry layoffs. DOL may require employers sponsoring PERM applications for such positions to undergo "supervised recruitment" in cases where the available data indicates that there may be available U.S. workers.
Supervised recruitment is a variation of the standard PERM procedure by which applicants for a position that is the subject of a PERM application submit their resumes directly to the DOL for initial review by DOL staff. The DOL forwards to employers the resumes of applicants that it deems qualified for the position. Employers are required to interview the applicants forwarded by DOL to determine whether the applicants are in fact qualified. To date, when DOL has issued supervised recruitment notices, more than half the cases have been withdrawn by the employer.
E-Verify Start Date for Federal Contractors Extended
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that Federal contractors and subcontractors can delay implementation of the use of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") E-Verify system. E-Verify is a government run on-line system that combines DHS data with records from the Social Security Administration to determine whether a new hire is eligible to work in the U.S. The final rule was to have become effective on January 15, 2009, but now will not take effect until May 21, 2009. Once effective, E-Verify will become mandatory for federal contractors with projects exceeding $100,000 and for sub-contractors with projects exceeding $3,000. Contracts for less than $100,000 or for commercially available off-the-shelf items are exempt from this rule. Once E-Verify becomes effective on May 21, 2009, companies awarded a contract with the federal government will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date. They will also need to begin using the E-Verify system to confirm that all of their new hires and their employees directly working on federal contracts are authorized to legally work in the United States
US VISIT Expanded to Include Lawful Permanent Residents
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently published a rule expanding the population of foreign nationals subject to the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program ("US-VISIT") to include U.S. permanent residents. US-VISIT will apply to all permanent residents entering or exiting from an air or seaport. Permanent residents entering through land ports of entry, however, will be required to provide fingerprints only if they are referred to secondary inspection.
Under US-VISIT, foreign nationals entering the United States provide "biometrics" (fingerprints scan and digital photograph) when passing through U.S. immigration. The biometric information collected upon entry is compared to the information collected at the time that the foreign national was originally issued a visa or Permanent Resident Card ("Green Card"). The biometric information is also compared to a criminal records database to confirm that a person is admissible to the United States. Permanent residents with criminal convictions traveling outside of the U.S. should be reminded that they are likely to be detected at entry and they should be prepared to present evidence regarding their admissibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TARP Restricts H-1B Hiring for Funds Recipients
The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) recently signed into law by President Obama places strict limits on recipients of funds or certain Federal Reserve loans that want to hire high-skilled workers under the H-1B visa program for a period of two years. TARP fund recipients include certain financial institutions as well as infrastructure, energy, and automobile companies. The bill subjects recipients of TARP funds to the same rules that an "H-1B dependent" employer must follow when it sponsors a new H-1B worker. (An H-1B dependent employer is one that has 15% or more H-1B workers in the employer's total full-time workforce.) These rules include:
� The employer cannot displace any similarly-employed U.S. worker with an H-1B worker within 90 days before or after applying for H-1B status for a new employee.
� The employer cannot place any H-1B worker at an outside worksite unless that employer first makes a "bona fide" inquiry as to whether the other employer has displaced or will displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before or after the placement of the H-1B worker.
� The employer has to take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job opening, at wages at least equal to those offered to the H-1B worker. The employer must offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker.
TARP contains provisions that may effectively limit recipients of TARP funds and Federal Reserve loans from sponsoring new H-1B workers. While H-1B dependency rules do not normally apply to H-1B workers earning at least $60,000 annually or possessing a Master's degree, these exemptions are not available to the TARP/Federal Reserve loan recipients.
The exact language of the bill states that the above requirements apply to "new employees" sponsored for H-1B status. While additional guidance may be issued from the Department of Labor, the plain language of the bill suggests that a company filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a current employee who is working with the company under F-1 Optional Practical Training, TN status, or some other work visa, should not be subject to the "H-1B dependent" rules. Similarly, the additional restrictions should not apply to petitions for extension of H-1B status for a current employee. However, an employer filing an H-1B change of employer petition for a new employee likely would be subject to these requirements.
The House-Senate Conference Committee removed a provision from the stimulus proposal that would have required recipients of TARP funds to enroll and participate in the E-Verify online employment eligibility verification program, as well as a provision that would have renewed the currently voluntary E-Verify program for an additional five years. E-Verify is currently set to expire in March 2009.
Effective Date of New Form I-9 Delayed Until April 3, 2009
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is extending the effective date of its new Form I-9 from February 2, 2009 to April 3, 2009. The new Form I-9 updates the list of documents acceptable for employment eligibility verification. The temporary extension will provide DHS with an opportunity for further consideration of this rule. DHS also is extending the comment period for this rule for 30 days.
Rising Unemployment May Affect PERM Processing
In a recent meeting between the Department of Labor (DOL) and representatives of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, DOL stated that rising unemployment may affect the processing of certain PERM labor certification applications. DOL is trying to integrate labor market information from various sources, such as WARN Act notices, to determine the availability of U.S. workers in areas affected by significant layoffs. DOL cited the position of Financial Analyst located in New York City as an example of a particular occupation and location where there might be qualified U.S. workers available due to recent financial industry layoffs. DOL may require employers sponsoring PERM applications for such positions to undergo "supervised recruitment" in cases where the available data indicates that there may be available U.S. workers.
Supervised recruitment is a variation of the standard PERM procedure by which applicants for a position that is the subject of a PERM application submit their resumes directly to the DOL for initial review by DOL staff. The DOL forwards to employers the resumes of applicants that it deems qualified for the position. Employers are required to interview the applicants forwarded by DOL to determine whether the applicants are in fact qualified. To date, when DOL has issued supervised recruitment notices, more than half the cases have been withdrawn by the employer.
E-Verify Start Date for Federal Contractors Extended
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that Federal contractors and subcontractors can delay implementation of the use of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") E-Verify system. E-Verify is a government run on-line system that combines DHS data with records from the Social Security Administration to determine whether a new hire is eligible to work in the U.S. The final rule was to have become effective on January 15, 2009, but now will not take effect until May 21, 2009. Once effective, E-Verify will become mandatory for federal contractors with projects exceeding $100,000 and for sub-contractors with projects exceeding $3,000. Contracts for less than $100,000 or for commercially available off-the-shelf items are exempt from this rule. Once E-Verify becomes effective on May 21, 2009, companies awarded a contract with the federal government will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date. They will also need to begin using the E-Verify system to confirm that all of their new hires and their employees directly working on federal contracts are authorized to legally work in the United States
US VISIT Expanded to Include Lawful Permanent Residents
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently published a rule expanding the population of foreign nationals subject to the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program ("US-VISIT") to include U.S. permanent residents. US-VISIT will apply to all permanent residents entering or exiting from an air or seaport. Permanent residents entering through land ports of entry, however, will be required to provide fingerprints only if they are referred to secondary inspection.
Under US-VISIT, foreign nationals entering the United States provide "biometrics" (fingerprints scan and digital photograph) when passing through U.S. immigration. The biometric information collected upon entry is compared to the information collected at the time that the foreign national was originally issued a visa or Permanent Resident Card ("Green Card"). The biometric information is also compared to a criminal records database to confirm that a person is admissible to the United States. Permanent residents with criminal convictions traveling outside of the U.S. should be reminded that they are likely to be detected at entry and they should be prepared to present evidence regarding their admissibility.
cool_guy_onnet1
02-21 09:37 AM
This is the EB1 the usage for the last 14 years
06 = 36,960
05 = 64.731
04 = 31,291
03 = 14,544
02 = 34,452
01 = 41,801
00 = 27,706
99 = 14,898
98 = 21,408
97 = 21,810
96 = 27,501
95 = 17,339
94 = 21,053
93 = 21,114
The limit was at least 40.040 for each FY. In FY 06 it was 41,170. As you can see the limit has been reached twice in the last 14 years.
I went to REC (one of the top 20 schools in India) did my Mastrs in Full scholarship and have International papers for IEEE + Few Algorithms that have been presented at Int. Conferences,( I could not attend the conf. in Paris since I did not want to go and get stamped and go through all the hassel- Go figure). I am an Ideal candidate for EB1 but my lawyer said there is a 50/50 chance for further enquiry and it will only delay the process.
I know, I know but trust me, I was a University topper in Probablity and AI theories and I decided to chicken-out.
Not because I am afraid of enquiries, I just dont want to raise any flags. I want to keep working, Hopefully get my GC within few* years and then prove myself .
I applied under EB2 only because I don't want any enquiries and I know these POS lawyers will only delay the RFE's.
Anyway, I was just frustated, sorry about this rage but just needed an outlet.
People will only file under EB1 when A) They are not from India/China and They are not afraid to go and face any flags.
& /OR B) They have good lawyer, who is very much prudent and willing to take chances.
Any other theories and welcome
*CONDITIONS APPLY LOL
06 = 36,960
05 = 64.731
04 = 31,291
03 = 14,544
02 = 34,452
01 = 41,801
00 = 27,706
99 = 14,898
98 = 21,408
97 = 21,810
96 = 27,501
95 = 17,339
94 = 21,053
93 = 21,114
The limit was at least 40.040 for each FY. In FY 06 it was 41,170. As you can see the limit has been reached twice in the last 14 years.
I went to REC (one of the top 20 schools in India) did my Mastrs in Full scholarship and have International papers for IEEE + Few Algorithms that have been presented at Int. Conferences,( I could not attend the conf. in Paris since I did not want to go and get stamped and go through all the hassel- Go figure). I am an Ideal candidate for EB1 but my lawyer said there is a 50/50 chance for further enquiry and it will only delay the process.
I know, I know but trust me, I was a University topper in Probablity and AI theories and I decided to chicken-out.
Not because I am afraid of enquiries, I just dont want to raise any flags. I want to keep working, Hopefully get my GC within few* years and then prove myself .
I applied under EB2 only because I don't want any enquiries and I know these POS lawyers will only delay the RFE's.
Anyway, I was just frustated, sorry about this rage but just needed an outlet.
People will only file under EB1 when A) They are not from India/China and They are not afraid to go and face any flags.
& /OR B) They have good lawyer, who is very much prudent and willing to take chances.
Any other theories and welcome
*CONDITIONS APPLY LOL
more...
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0dJR-s5xkTzeiZSTMAZwauwkFrciUiefp0t53H8JKccQmVTqtFVncTbH3LDBFUIWDhv6-8RPtdlwByorboYsTvUCPSTgRvkgAQ4pOBGPbsk8oLDB4LzMYhUbA55k0OWKsSr4VvDTcy9U1/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0dJR-s5xkTzeiZSTMAZwauwkFrciUiefp0t53H8JKccQmVTqtFVncTbH3LDBFUIWDhv6-8RPtdlwByorboYsTvUCPSTgRvkgAQ4pOBGPbsk8oLDB4LzMYhUbA55k0OWKsSr4VvDTcy9U1/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
2010 heidi klum hairstyles.
keepwalking
05-13 04:56 PM
My priority date becomes current on June 1st. I need to add my wife (dependent) to my green card process. Please let me know how long it takes for her to get her green card. We stay in Houston, Texas. My I-485 is with Texas processing Center.
more...
sledge_hammer
07-25 04:20 PM
This idea is ridiculous. Blood donation is a sign of protest????? If you think giving blood is so bad and you want to protest in that way, you will not gain sympathy.
THIS IS A BAD IDEA FOR A PROTEST!
Before I say any thing further, I want to clarify that I am NOT asking for any action but want to point out to a unique Gandhigiri protest idea proposed by one of our members:
On one of the posts rajmehrotra suggested "Something like a mass blood donation drive will garner empathy and publicity in a positive way." This was seconded by another member Gravitation. Not sure what other people think but I personally liked this idea very much.
So please save this idea for future use if others also recommend it.
THIS IS A BAD IDEA FOR A PROTEST!
Before I say any thing further, I want to clarify that I am NOT asking for any action but want to point out to a unique Gandhigiri protest idea proposed by one of our members:
On one of the posts rajmehrotra suggested "Something like a mass blood donation drive will garner empathy and publicity in a positive way." This was seconded by another member Gravitation. Not sure what other people think but I personally liked this idea very much.
So please save this idea for future use if others also recommend it.
hair Hayden Christensen Signed
reachinus
07-14 01:44 PM
Can you please tell us from where you got those LIN # from -source please
uscis web site
uscis web site
more...
seeking_GC
08-14 10:13 PM
Take an infopass appointment or call USCIS customer service. However there is no guarantee that whatever they tell you is correct.:mad:
I have recieved date july 17th 2007, Notice date sep 13th,recieved by R Williams.I have not got RFE till now, no 2nd finger printing notice. Should I go to USCIS and ask them to take a 2nd finger print.No clue that FBI Name check is cleared.WHAT TO DO?
I have recieved date july 17th 2007, Notice date sep 13th,recieved by R Williams.I have not got RFE till now, no 2nd finger printing notice. Should I go to USCIS and ask them to take a 2nd finger print.No clue that FBI Name check is cleared.WHAT TO DO?
hot The annual average price has
thankgod
04-25 10:50 AM
Send him to your own country. America has its own problems.
It cant accomodate the theifs like your son.
People like your son giving wrong impression on the immigrants.
It cant accomodate the theifs like your son.
People like your son giving wrong impression on the immigrants.
more...
house jennifer aniston untouched photos. jennifer aniston untouched
snathan
02-15 12:56 PM
And when OP INQUIRED you stretched it to INVOLVED ? I mean , I know both starts with IN :) but INQUIRE and INVOLVE has entirely different meaning.
OP Inquired about the process does not mean that he is Involved in the process.
You didnt read his other posts where he was asking about the job ads....
OP Inquired about the process does not mean that he is Involved in the process.
You didnt read his other posts where he was asking about the job ads....
tattoo more keri hilson 2011.
arnet
02-26 04:10 PM
H4 visa holder can pursue their studies in US but they cannot work while studying.
he/she should stay in H4 visa if you filed (or want to file) I-485 based on your dependent's I-485 application because F1 visa holders are not eligible for I-485 dependent benefits and changing from H4 to F1 will cancel the I-485 application if he/she already filed based on dependent application.
so better to stay in H4 if you filed or want to file I-485 based on your dependent's application until you get GC.
My wife is completing 6 years on H1 visa in Sept 07. She is planning to join school which will isssue her I-20. The school starts in Aug07 and she need to go to India for 2 weeks in Nov 07.
Can she get H4 stamped from canada on my H1B, so that she do not face F1 rejection in india?
Thanks
he/she should stay in H4 visa if you filed (or want to file) I-485 based on your dependent's I-485 application because F1 visa holders are not eligible for I-485 dependent benefits and changing from H4 to F1 will cancel the I-485 application if he/she already filed based on dependent application.
so better to stay in H4 if you filed or want to file I-485 based on your dependent's application until you get GC.
My wife is completing 6 years on H1 visa in Sept 07. She is planning to join school which will isssue her I-20. The school starts in Aug07 and she need to go to India for 2 weeks in Nov 07.
Can she get H4 stamped from canada on my H1B, so that she do not face F1 rejection in india?
Thanks
more...
pictures jigsaw puzzle template. and
Robert Kumar
02-15 08:09 AM
If I were to file EB2 now,
1. Can I use ads done for somebody else, to save time.
2. Should the ad in the paper say "Masters needed, or Bachelors + 5 years".
Is this point 2 very important in the ad itself.
Thank you,
Bobby.
1. Can I use ads done for somebody else, to save time.
2. Should the ad in the paper say "Masters needed, or Bachelors + 5 years".
Is this point 2 very important in the ad itself.
Thank you,
Bobby.
dresses more.
diqingshen
07-11 02:09 PM
From my lawyer:
We are being told that they are holding all of them for now. We are unsure
where this will land because of congressional pressure and lawsuits that
will be filed. We are still waiting to get more answers about what
immigration plans to do.
We are being told that they are holding all of them for now. We are unsure
where this will land because of congressional pressure and lawsuits that
will be filed. We are still waiting to get more answers about what
immigration plans to do.
more...
makeup nokia animated wallpapers for
pd052009
09-13 12:31 PM
No meals.. Forced to go on hungry.. As long as politics play, the deserved ones go hungry... :(
girlfriend black short curly hairstyles.
amitga
01-25 11:17 AM
Govt of India will do nothing to stop harrassment of NRIs at Indian Airport (customs) and we are thinking that they will do something here.
hairstyles more laser wallpaper.
ak_2006
10-19 03:52 PM
I will donate same amount i.e. $250 when I get GC.
uma001
10-16 12:50 PM
Do everything in premium..It is a matter of extra $1000 for each stage (H1 or I140)
lacrossegc
12-05 09:49 PM
You mean Visa Bulletin programmer?
Hillarious !! you the man pappu !:eek:
Hillarious !! you the man pappu !:eek:
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento