kshitijnt
05-02 01:10 AM
Here are details of my interview:
VO: what do you do?
I: Software engineer.
VO: How many employees in your company?
I: 20-25
VO: I see your english is not good. How will you be able to do your job?
I: You are the first person to tell me in last 4 years that I cant do my job due to poor english.
[At this point I was ticked off]
VO: How long did you work for last employer?
I: 18 months
VO: How many employees in previous company?
I: 150
VO: How many Indians?
I: I dont know. Ask the employer.
VO: Is this company owned by Indians?
I: I dont ask my boss his citizenship status.
VO: Have you worked with them before?
I: Yes, I am here just to revalidate my visa.
VO: Why you are working for a small company?
I: My preference.
VO: How much salary do you earn?
I: XYZ USD per annum.
VO: Thank you very much sir, your visa is approved.
Didnt bother to thank her, just turned my back and walked away. Visa came by mail.
VO: what do you do?
I: Software engineer.
VO: How many employees in your company?
I: 20-25
VO: I see your english is not good. How will you be able to do your job?
I: You are the first person to tell me in last 4 years that I cant do my job due to poor english.
[At this point I was ticked off]
VO: How long did you work for last employer?
I: 18 months
VO: How many employees in previous company?
I: 150
VO: How many Indians?
I: I dont know. Ask the employer.
VO: Is this company owned by Indians?
I: I dont ask my boss his citizenship status.
VO: Have you worked with them before?
I: Yes, I am here just to revalidate my visa.
VO: Why you are working for a small company?
I: My preference.
VO: How much salary do you earn?
I: XYZ USD per annum.
VO: Thank you very much sir, your visa is approved.
Didnt bother to thank her, just turned my back and walked away. Visa came by mail.
wallpaper Johnny Depp Back For Pirates
pooja_34
12-22 02:27 PM
Now you are trying to hijack my other thread - Why dont you start your own threads MF?? And please update your priority date :)
They showed finger ? :D
They showed finger ? :D
jb05
08-19 09:53 AM
Category:- EB2
Nationality:- India
PD:- 07/2004 (TSC)
I485:-RD-07-27-2007/ND-09/22/2007
Finger Print check and name check cleared as per infopass officer
Nationality:- India
PD:- 07/2004 (TSC)
I485:-RD-07-27-2007/ND-09/22/2007
Finger Print check and name check cleared as per infopass officer
2011 Is Johnny Depp Leaving Pirates
gcpadmavyuh
08-22 10:16 AM
Most of us do not have access to Aila's articles.
more...
Soul
02-11 11:09 AM
These votes change everytime I look!
Its way too tense for me :x
Anyway, now this battle is over I can finish (start lol) my Kirupaville block...
Hmmm ideas... *thinks*
- Soul :goatee:
Its way too tense for me :x
Anyway, now this battle is over I can finish (start lol) my Kirupaville block...
Hmmm ideas... *thinks*
- Soul :goatee:
sreeni.k
01-13 09:44 PM
I agree with you completely; I will never travel through frankfurt or any german airport again or any german airline. I think they see indians are sticklers for procedure/afraid lets milk them for some visa money. All we will be doing is get off one airline and switch to other one. Probably that takes like 2 hours within the terminal and for that you have to fill in a paper work, money and spend more time then that gab. This is just out right harrassment. Let them rot in hell :mad:.
Transit visa is the biggest fraud ever on the face of us. As a principle I NEVER traveled on Transit visa after it came in to existence.
It's absolutely ridiculous to charge $$ for a visa where all you are going to do is take a dump in their airport.. :mad::mad::mad:
Indians should not patronize airlines demanding transit visa. atleast people who need transit visa should not fly..
Transit visa is the biggest fraud ever on the face of us. As a principle I NEVER traveled on Transit visa after it came in to existence.
It's absolutely ridiculous to charge $$ for a visa where all you are going to do is take a dump in their airport.. :mad::mad::mad:
Indians should not patronize airlines demanding transit visa. atleast people who need transit visa should not fly..
more...
chanduv23
11-16 03:25 PM
actually I realized the difference bet LC ads and EEOC laws:
Per EEOC, they cannot discriminate to hire a person on a visa. But for green card sponsorship, they have to show preference for an equally qualified USC or perm resident.
I know this b/c my employer, while sponsoring a previous H-1b at my firm, during the LC process found a qualified USC. They stopped the gc process, but could not let the person go b/c it is legal to hire an H-1b even if USCs are available.
What practical sense does this make? Once an employer sponsors an H-1b, why would he want to go thru the whole recruiting and training process again to hire a new person?
When it comes to implementation, things vary. Laws are made so that they can be worked around, laws are made in a way that can be interpreted in many ways, laws canbe generalised, they have grey areas. Everything is based on convinience.
Per EEOC, they cannot discriminate to hire a person on a visa. But for green card sponsorship, they have to show preference for an equally qualified USC or perm resident.
I know this b/c my employer, while sponsoring a previous H-1b at my firm, during the LC process found a qualified USC. They stopped the gc process, but could not let the person go b/c it is legal to hire an H-1b even if USCs are available.
What practical sense does this make? Once an employer sponsors an H-1b, why would he want to go thru the whole recruiting and training process again to hire a new person?
When it comes to implementation, things vary. Laws are made so that they can be worked around, laws are made in a way that can be interpreted in many ways, laws canbe generalised, they have grey areas. Everything is based on convinience.
2010 johnny depp pirates of the
shana04
08-20 05:52 PM
Friend,
Even if you paid cash, probably should have withdrawn from bank. And you should be having that bank withdrawl slip or you can go online to get a copy of your bank statement, which shows that you have withdrawn that amount - this is just a proof.
Now call your employer to refund all your money with interest and the loss that you incured for working all these years and the opportunity that you have lost for not filing I 485, else you would file a case agains him with police and FBI for taking cash as this would not provide any proof for filing labor and not filing I 485.
Now you threaten that you would file a suit against him, give all kinds of threats to these A**H***S. sorry could not control my words.
I am kind of same situtation but my employer filed my 485, but exploiting me.
Bastarads, would not progress of some one else money.
I am sorry for you my friend.
Even if you paid cash, probably should have withdrawn from bank. And you should be having that bank withdrawl slip or you can go online to get a copy of your bank statement, which shows that you have withdrawn that amount - this is just a proof.
Now call your employer to refund all your money with interest and the loss that you incured for working all these years and the opportunity that you have lost for not filing I 485, else you would file a case agains him with police and FBI for taking cash as this would not provide any proof for filing labor and not filing I 485.
Now you threaten that you would file a suit against him, give all kinds of threats to these A**H***S. sorry could not control my words.
I am kind of same situtation but my employer filed my 485, but exploiting me.
Bastarads, would not progress of some one else money.
I am sorry for you my friend.
more...
kart2007
05-17 12:52 PM
First of all make a complaint about the employer to the INS that he is not paying... and make decision, US is not your entire life. If you have confidence you can do anything anywhere in this small world.
So I assume you told this to your neighbor who lives downstairs :D
So I assume you told this to your neighbor who lives downstairs :D
hair johnny-depp-pirates-disneyland
nrk
10-26 08:55 PM
I just talked company A HR, my name one not among the withdrawn list, But he will look into that and let me know tomorrow.
Maybe your I140 was withdrawn by the company A.
Maybe your I140 was withdrawn by the company A.
more...
willwin
06-05 11:44 AM
That post was intended towards EB3 category, particularly EB3-India. Ever since starting of this Fiscal Year there are very few EB3-India approvals (Can anybody dispute that?). So how come USCIS used up all the visas already?? Most of the guys here always talk about EB2-India which is not highly effected category in the first place. We suppose to be taking care of effected categories.
I have a friend of mine with PD July 2001 (EB3 Ind) with NC cleared. His GC is not cleared despite his date being current for few months now.
Who is saying USCIS is doing diligence? If they were, dates cannot move forward so much for EB2 Ind and EB3 ROW.
I have a friend of mine with PD July 2001 (EB3 Ind) with NC cleared. His GC is not cleared despite his date being current for few months now.
Who is saying USCIS is doing diligence? If they were, dates cannot move forward so much for EB2 Ind and EB3 ROW.
hot jack sparrow , johnny depp
wa_Saiprasad
07-04 09:29 PM
My company paid for attorney fees. I don�t know the amount for that. My wild guess would be 4000$
My pocket expense
$680 - medical tests
$75 - photographs
$50 - mailing fees.
$100 � Extra Day care expenses. My wife and I have wasted 2 working days for this filling, We had to work extra hours and week ends to compensate. Had to drop my kid at the day care extra hours when we were working extra hours.
My pocket expense
$680 - medical tests
$75 - photographs
$50 - mailing fees.
$100 � Extra Day care expenses. My wife and I have wasted 2 working days for this filling, We had to work extra hours and week ends to compensate. Had to drop my kid at the day care extra hours when we were working extra hours.
more...
house Pirates of the Caribbean At
willwin
06-13 12:46 PM
how many PhDs work for Microsoft who is started by college dropout?
Nice punch!
Nice punch!
tattoo various Tattoos. Pirates
wellwishergc
04-10 07:24 PM
Berkeley,
I am of the opinion that issues such as 'allowing I-485 even if visa data not current' or 'allowing for application of EAD once I-140 approved' could be addressed by urging appropriate agencies to make changes to the existing regulations. As bharnik pointed out there is no effect on the visa numbers for the USCIS, by allowing this. While we fight and wait for legislation, this is a very good short-term relief.
Is it possible for IV to brain-storm on this? and come up with an approach to address this, without having to go through the congress?..
Please advise..
Sincerely,
Raj
bkarnik,
Excellent, creative question. Alas, the answer to this lies not in the INA itself but the Code of Federal Regulations.
To be specific, 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.12.pdf) is what allows employment authorization at the adjustment of status stage. See page 658 of the linked document.
I was about to write an explanation of 8 CFR 274, but then I found this excellent summary which describes the regulation of the employment of aliens http://www.coane.com/pdfs/workpermits.pdf
Now how do we go about changing this provision to include I-140 -- not sure.
However, it is simply a case of moving the ball around --
either you ask that people be able to file adjustment of status even if visa numbers are not available
OR
you ask that 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) be amended so that people with approved I-140s be allowed to get EADs and Advance Parole.
I am of the opinion that issues such as 'allowing I-485 even if visa data not current' or 'allowing for application of EAD once I-140 approved' could be addressed by urging appropriate agencies to make changes to the existing regulations. As bharnik pointed out there is no effect on the visa numbers for the USCIS, by allowing this. While we fight and wait for legislation, this is a very good short-term relief.
Is it possible for IV to brain-storm on this? and come up with an approach to address this, without having to go through the congress?..
Please advise..
Sincerely,
Raj
bkarnik,
Excellent, creative question. Alas, the answer to this lies not in the INA itself but the Code of Federal Regulations.
To be specific, 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.12.pdf) is what allows employment authorization at the adjustment of status stage. See page 658 of the linked document.
I was about to write an explanation of 8 CFR 274, but then I found this excellent summary which describes the regulation of the employment of aliens http://www.coane.com/pdfs/workpermits.pdf
Now how do we go about changing this provision to include I-140 -- not sure.
However, it is simply a case of moving the ball around --
either you ask that people be able to file adjustment of status even if visa numbers are not available
OR
you ask that 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) be amended so that people with approved I-140s be allowed to get EADs and Advance Parole.
more...
pictures Johnny Depp posing as Captain
VMH_GC
07-10 08:16 PM
I think we should brought up this to indian government and use government powers to pressure CNN in india to take up this matter with Mr. Turner.
dresses Johnny-Depp-in-Pirates-of-the-
swede
08-31 10:10 PM
This is your only chance. There is no more rally later.
If you want to wait 10+ years for your green card, stay at home and hide. (Retrogression will just get worse, I guarantee). If you want to change your future and get a GC one day please show up at the rally. We are there to show that we even exist, no need to do anything else. We need everyone.
No one cares about people who doesn't exist.
If you want to wait 10+ years for your green card, stay at home and hide. (Retrogression will just get worse, I guarantee). If you want to change your future and get a GC one day please show up at the rally. We are there to show that we even exist, no need to do anything else. We need everyone.
No one cares about people who doesn't exist.
more...
makeup images johnny depp pirates of
jayZinDC
06-05 04:25 PM
In which case it could be a good thing, so unapproved I-140's, if deemed approvable will be approved on filing of AC21 portability. There are a few who have not filed for portability but moved on EAD, what is their case now? This things only gets from bad to worse. Anyone with inside info pls chime in.
well this memo is taking it one step further than the last memo -
it is saying that the I-140 must be approved before determining portability. which means most likely if you file for portability and your 140 has not been approved then USCIS will be forced to look at your 140 petition and approve it.
well this memo is taking it one step further than the last memo -
it is saying that the I-140 must be approved before determining portability. which means most likely if you file for portability and your 140 has not been approved then USCIS will be forced to look at your 140 petition and approve it.
girlfriend + Johnny Depp @ Pirates of
gapala
03-03 12:40 PM
Can you guys guess, why isn't there an update on this thread after the visit?
Do you think we will ever see an update from OP?
Hope, all have gone well with this guy and soon will see update on the visit. :)
Do you think we will ever see an update from OP?
Hope, all have gone well with this guy and soon will see update on the visit. :)
hairstyles WHERE does the Pirates of the
wahwah
06-05 02:59 PM
andy garcia,
its not about reading it 10 times....but you're incorrect - read this portion in the memo dont just blindly read the "must be approved I-140 portion" of the memo.
it clearly says that the new memo is not any different from what was said back in 2005. here is the excerpt from the new memo:
In order to be considered valid, an I-140 petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a portability request made under INA � 204(j).
The holding in this decision is consistent with the guidance previously provided in the answer to Question 1, Section 1, on page 3 of the December 27, 2005 memorandum entitled Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313).
and by the way...here is the Q1, Section 1 page the memo is talking about....
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.[/I][/I][/I][/I]
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
its not about reading it 10 times....but you're incorrect - read this portion in the memo dont just blindly read the "must be approved I-140 portion" of the memo.
it clearly says that the new memo is not any different from what was said back in 2005. here is the excerpt from the new memo:
In order to be considered valid, an I-140 petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a portability request made under INA � 204(j).
The holding in this decision is consistent with the guidance previously provided in the answer to Question 1, Section 1, on page 3 of the December 27, 2005 memorandum entitled Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313).
and by the way...here is the Q1, Section 1 page the memo is talking about....
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.[/I][/I][/I][/I]
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
desi3933
06-19 02:52 PM
Employer letter is not required if you are attaching photocopies of two current pay stubs.
Thanks,
Jayant
Mr. Jayant -
This is incorrect.
Remember, GC is for the future job and I-485 is not H1 filing where you need pay stubs.
One needs EVL for I-485. The job position must be open in order for beneficiary to file for I-485 application.
Have a good day!
Thanks,
Jayant
Mr. Jayant -
This is incorrect.
Remember, GC is for the future job and I-485 is not H1 filing where you need pay stubs.
One needs EVL for I-485. The job position must be open in order for beneficiary to file for I-485 application.
Have a good day!
BharatPremi
03-25 08:59 AM
I would highly appreciate the responses from the guys who have done this.
Thanks.
Thanks.
