MetteBB
05-12 02:07 AM
Why thank you! Looks nice and fresh doesnt it? Like you just wanna take a big bite out of them. :drool:
/mette
/mette
jiraprapaasa
04-10 03:26 PM
Even she is 13 years old. She still need to purchase PIN and go for an interview.
pmb76
07-14 12:42 AM
I sent a letter to Rep Zoe Lofgren on July 4 after she sent a letter to Chertoff and Rice on our behalf. Below is what I wrote:
Re: July Visa Bulletin revision
Dear Representative Lofgren,
Let me begin by Thanking you immensely for standing up for the cause of legal immigrants. Your response to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco made me very pleased and re-instilled the hope in me that I had lost as a result of the recent announcements by USCIS to stop accepting Adjustment of Status applications.
It is indeed appalling that the various problems faced by highly skilled legal immigrants get lost in the cracks of the system and do not get any media coverage.
I have been in the U.S for approximately 9 years now. I graduated with a Masters in Engineering from a highly ranked school here, always played by the rules and still am stuck in the backlog delays and the bureaucracies of the immigration process.
The July visa bulletin released on June 13th a gave me and others a ray of hope which was crushed after USCIS stopped accepting applications on July 2nd. I have spend huge amount time, effort and attorney's fees preparing all the paperwork and submitting it to USCIS on July 2nd.
Again I want you to know how much me and other skilled workers in the same situation as me, appreciate your taking up this issue with Dept of State and USCIS. Thank you so much for your help in this critical hour. Please help us in resolving this issue and also discuss this with your colleagues in congress so they may also take up this issue with the Federal government agencies.
Sincere Regards,
XYZ
Re: July Visa Bulletin revision
Dear Representative Lofgren,
Let me begin by Thanking you immensely for standing up for the cause of legal immigrants. Your response to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco made me very pleased and re-instilled the hope in me that I had lost as a result of the recent announcements by USCIS to stop accepting Adjustment of Status applications.
It is indeed appalling that the various problems faced by highly skilled legal immigrants get lost in the cracks of the system and do not get any media coverage.
I have been in the U.S for approximately 9 years now. I graduated with a Masters in Engineering from a highly ranked school here, always played by the rules and still am stuck in the backlog delays and the bureaucracies of the immigration process.
The July visa bulletin released on June 13th a gave me and others a ray of hope which was crushed after USCIS stopped accepting applications on July 2nd. I have spend huge amount time, effort and attorney's fees preparing all the paperwork and submitting it to USCIS on July 2nd.
Again I want you to know how much me and other skilled workers in the same situation as me, appreciate your taking up this issue with Dept of State and USCIS. Thank you so much for your help in this critical hour. Please help us in resolving this issue and also discuss this with your colleagues in congress so they may also take up this issue with the Federal government agencies.
Sincere Regards,
XYZ
nousername
03-18 03:55 PM
I am just wondering how in the world members here get to know where their cases were transferred after receiving a soft LUD?
My case starts with WAC and I don't remember where my lawyer originally filed my case but since then it has been transferred twice.. God only knows where..
My case starts with WAC and I don't remember where my lawyer originally filed my case but since then it has been transferred twice.. God only knows where..
more...
aaaa4321
08-24 11:47 PM
Does anyone have an idea about this week receipt update as it is not out yet.
Please advice.
Please advice.
drirshad
10-24 06:57 PM
Detroit Infopass officers are laid back, if it is the same heavy lady you had to go to I sympathize with you. She was the most mean govt official I have come across in past 10 years. Her response to me was the details about my case cannot be discussed due to National Security reasons, tried ask another question and was abruptly cut to be asked to wait.
more...
Macaca
04-22 09:07 AM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) -- Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation?, by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
needhelp!
10-19 10:39 PM
bump
more...
Yeldarb
07-27 11:31 PM
www.scriptscribbler.com/sof2.php - A team and match picker for online multiplayer games. Designed specifically for Soldier of Fortune 2: Double Helix, but will work with any other game that has teams that play against each other. This helped familiarize me with arrays, multi-dimensional arrays, evals, and several other PHP topics.
www.barbdwyer.com/flanube.swf - A header created for a web design company. Shows the design side of what I do rather than most of the other stuff here that shows coding. Also see the banner for the same site with the same concept www.barbdwyer.com/flanubebanner.swf
www.barbdwyer.com/flanube.swf - A header created for a web design company. Shows the design side of what I do rather than most of the other stuff here that shows coding. Also see the banner for the same site with the same concept www.barbdwyer.com/flanubebanner.swf
bobbydalal
09-22 03:46 PM
Guys forget what we think on the HR5882. iF WE ALL GET TOGETHER AND PRAY ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. So lets stop being negative in our approcah and just say yes it will and keep calling and praying yaar.
more...
sammyb
02-09 10:31 PM
RNGC .. great work done by your little princes ... am eagerly waiting to see the letter ... guess when you post in the forum you have an option to attach certain documents like pdf etc ...
Sammy.
Sammy.
Berkeleybee
03-07 06:58 PM
Tagging members who paid so far and who has not is a start for the membership drive. Once we cover the registered members and encourage them to contribute, then we can move on to our friends and companies.
Excellent -- have you got in touch with Jay to help him, or are these just sitting on the sidelines suggestions?
Excellent -- have you got in touch with Jay to help him, or are these just sitting on the sidelines suggestions?
more...
payur
03-11 08:11 PM
Ok, here is the response from my lawyer:
"You can give back both but make sure that you have a photocopy in your
file. Actually, the 2 I-94 cards have the same number."
"You can give back both but make sure that you have a photocopy in your
file. Actually, the 2 I-94 cards have the same number."
lonedesi
01-15 04:08 PM
I am in the same boat. They are taking way too long to process H1-B extensions.
Its the same with I-140 too. My application has been pending at VSC for 7 months now and no signs of it being transferred to TSC or NSC for processing or if it will be processed at VSC itself. There is no sign of PP starting anytime soon either. It is such a painful situation to be in. Would it be of any help, if we can contact the USCIS Ombudsman???
Its the same with I-140 too. My application has been pending at VSC for 7 months now and no signs of it being transferred to TSC or NSC for processing or if it will be processed at VSC itself. There is no sign of PP starting anytime soon either. It is such a painful situation to be in. Would it be of any help, if we can contact the USCIS Ombudsman???
more...
.jpg "sad love poems and")
ssdtm
02-23 10:31 PM
As far as I know, there is no "filing of AC21 with an attorney". Please be more specific as this is not clear.
AC21 is something on basis of which you can change employer. If you get an RFE than you simply have to prove that you used AC21 to change employer. That's it.
Some people proactively send a letter to USCIS informing that they are using/have used AC21 to change their employer. But based on various attorneys feedback, opinion is that USCIS does not really use that letter for anything if sent proactively just to inform USCIS that you are using AC21.
AC21 is something on basis of which you can change employer. If you get an RFE than you simply have to prove that you used AC21 to change employer. That's it.
Some people proactively send a letter to USCIS informing that they are using/have used AC21 to change their employer. But based on various attorneys feedback, opinion is that USCIS does not really use that letter for anything if sent proactively just to inform USCIS that you are using AC21.
sunny1000
06-06 07:09 PM
I heard I-140 premium processing has been restarted. Is it true?
Where did you hear this? Can you please let us in on your source(s)?
Where did you hear this? Can you please let us in on your source(s)?
more...
dan19
06-28 01:01 PM
Some relief for both legal immigrants and opponents of the bill.
qualified_trash
11-07 03:52 PM
Gcneeded,
Lots of people seem to be giving advice, gratis, and pretending as if they were lawyers. I would suggest you consult a lawyer and get information about the exact documents that your parents would need. While even I, as a layman, know that the B-1/B-2 visa is not tied to a sponsor, I also know that mere possession of a valid visa is not sufficient grounds for the entry of a foreigner into the US. A lot rests at the discretion of the USCIS Immigration Officer at the port of entry.
If I were you, I would err on the side of caution. Please consult a lawyer - you can get these questions answered for free by asking the attorney Sonal Mehta Verma, who periodically gives gratis legal advice to IV members. Good luck!
RR
actually, they should need no supporting docs on subsequent visits (my parents came the first time with supporting docs). the second time, just the ticket and that was after 9/11 so...........
GCneeded seems to be inordinately concerned about supporting docs etc......
Lots of people seem to be giving advice, gratis, and pretending as if they were lawyers. I would suggest you consult a lawyer and get information about the exact documents that your parents would need. While even I, as a layman, know that the B-1/B-2 visa is not tied to a sponsor, I also know that mere possession of a valid visa is not sufficient grounds for the entry of a foreigner into the US. A lot rests at the discretion of the USCIS Immigration Officer at the port of entry.
If I were you, I would err on the side of caution. Please consult a lawyer - you can get these questions answered for free by asking the attorney Sonal Mehta Verma, who periodically gives gratis legal advice to IV members. Good luck!
RR
actually, they should need no supporting docs on subsequent visits (my parents came the first time with supporting docs). the second time, just the ticket and that was after 9/11 so...........
GCneeded seems to be inordinately concerned about supporting docs etc......
snathan
03-28 12:21 PM
Hi,
In 2005 I was working at california and my employer was at NJ. I did my tax filing with a all state agent abd he filed taxes for just NJ and federal.
Yesterday I got a notice from California that I have filed taxes using california address and didnot files state taxes for CA.
and I need to proof that I filed the taxes that year or file the taxes.
I went to HR block and prepared taxes for 2005 and mailed to them.
Same thing was there when I filed for 2006 taxes, my consultant didnt filed the taxes for CA.
So I prepared taxes for 2006 also and mailed to them. Both I mailed as a physical mail.
Did any one had similar experiance or any issues?
If you worked in CA you need to file the same state. You dont have to file the tax for the state where your employer resides.
In 2005 I was working at california and my employer was at NJ. I did my tax filing with a all state agent abd he filed taxes for just NJ and federal.
Yesterday I got a notice from California that I have filed taxes using california address and didnot files state taxes for CA.
and I need to proof that I filed the taxes that year or file the taxes.
I went to HR block and prepared taxes for 2005 and mailed to them.
Same thing was there when I filed for 2006 taxes, my consultant didnt filed the taxes for CA.
So I prepared taxes for 2006 also and mailed to them. Both I mailed as a physical mail.
Did any one had similar experiance or any issues?
If you worked in CA you need to file the same state. You dont have to file the tax for the state where your employer resides.
daramesh
10-07 12:49 PM
there are two things about visa one is stamp and other is status. if you maintained the same status in USA as you are going for stamping you will answer yes.
eg. you had a H1 stamp that expired in 2006 but you had extended that status and only now getting it stamped then you will answer yes.
but if you had a prev stamp of F1 and then changed to H1 and going for H1 stamping then you will answer no.
For H4 are they asking sepeartely, because you will answer yes in your case and then add yoor daughter to your appointment.
You are only answering for yourself when you say yes, i dont think there is any misrepresentation involved.
waitintoolong, but the question is
" "Are you applying for same visa class that expired in the last 12 months?"
he is talking about VISA STAMP not the status. are you sure about answering YES if my visa stamp had expired more than 12 months back but my status is valid?
my visa stamp expired in 2005 itself. I extended my status till 2008. so my answer is should be NO right? (although I wish I could say YES, because first time H1 applicants are having difficulty getting appointments)
can you or someone else confirm the answer? has anyone asked VFS/consulate about this?
thanks
eg. you had a H1 stamp that expired in 2006 but you had extended that status and only now getting it stamped then you will answer yes.
but if you had a prev stamp of F1 and then changed to H1 and going for H1 stamping then you will answer no.
For H4 are they asking sepeartely, because you will answer yes in your case and then add yoor daughter to your appointment.
You are only answering for yourself when you say yes, i dont think there is any misrepresentation involved.
waitintoolong, but the question is
" "Are you applying for same visa class that expired in the last 12 months?"
he is talking about VISA STAMP not the status. are you sure about answering YES if my visa stamp had expired more than 12 months back but my status is valid?
my visa stamp expired in 2005 itself. I extended my status till 2008. so my answer is should be NO right? (although I wish I could say YES, because first time H1 applicants are having difficulty getting appointments)
can you or someone else confirm the answer? has anyone asked VFS/consulate about this?
thanks
lazycis
12-05 01:04 PM
Same here, as I've got my GC recently and my citizenship application is 5 years away. On top of this, an individual cannot file a class-action lawsuit, it should be an organized group. Otherwise I would've done it. For whatever reasons neither ACLU nor AILA/AILF want to take on I-485 class action.
