vinabath
04-22 03:16 PM
Non-compete are notoriously hard to implement.
Only if it is too restrictive. this case is pretty straightforward and simple. employee is directly hitting the employer's revenues.
Only if it is too restrictive. this case is pretty straightforward and simple. employee is directly hitting the employer's revenues.
wallpaper War of the Worlds game.
simple1
05-01 03:21 PM
I second that. Technically they should not be. thanks MCQ, H1 and H4 is a great example
If at all they are counted they must be counted in FB2A not EB.
Honestly, I don’t care if they are counted or not. Why would 5 year old kid get counted in EB quota. I don’t get it.
as long as they are not counted in EBquota. There is no legal basis for that. Or atleast I could not find one.
I have long been of the opinion - told to me by an immigration lawyer, that when you file your I-485 when the PD is current, and your dependents file also that only the Primary counts towards the quota, dependent GC's do not count towards the employment based visa quota - so this may be a moot point as to whether or not they should be in the family or employment based lists.
Much like when you file for an H1B, the H4 for your dependants does not count agains the overall H quota.
If at all they are counted they must be counted in FB2A not EB.
Honestly, I don’t care if they are counted or not. Why would 5 year old kid get counted in EB quota. I don’t get it.
as long as they are not counted in EBquota. There is no legal basis for that. Or atleast I could not find one.
I have long been of the opinion - told to me by an immigration lawyer, that when you file your I-485 when the PD is current, and your dependents file also that only the Primary counts towards the quota, dependent GC's do not count towards the employment based visa quota - so this may be a moot point as to whether or not they should be in the family or employment based lists.
Much like when you file for an H1B, the H4 for your dependants does not count agains the overall H quota.
drirshad
08-13 11:12 PM
Cool calculation ..............
On aug 9 th, USCIS nebraska center issued a total of 4063 receipt nos for 485, EAD, and APs.
see the link http://.com/discuss/485eb/20866725/
From this, if we assume ~4000/day, it ll take 20 working days to clear july 2nd filers (~80,000). My guess is by 31st Aug.
On aug 9 th, USCIS nebraska center issued a total of 4063 receipt nos for 485, EAD, and APs.
see the link http://.com/discuss/485eb/20866725/
From this, if we assume ~4000/day, it ll take 20 working days to clear july 2nd filers (~80,000). My guess is by 31st Aug.
2011 war of the worlds aliens.
mqualique
05-01 03:20 PM
Spouse can stay in the country as far as her/his 485 has been applied before EB primary got a GC and after EB primary PD was current.
It WILL matter if while filing 485 EB & EB dependents have to use EB PD & FB PD respectively because then it could happen that EB primary got GC but EB dependent was never able to file 485.
In most cases it WON'T matter if while filing 485 EB & EB dependents can both use EB PD.
So if EB Dependents can use FB Quota but EB PD that would be really good for us. Off course clarification from attorney is always a good idea.
Our intention is to findout if CIS interpretation is correct. If spouse can stay in the country with EAD and AP and if Primary gets GC first. It won't matter much becos, that EAD will not have any strings attached on same or similar etc. So we should be OK.
It WILL matter if while filing 485 EB & EB dependents have to use EB PD & FB PD respectively because then it could happen that EB primary got GC but EB dependent was never able to file 485.
In most cases it WON'T matter if while filing 485 EB & EB dependents can both use EB PD.
So if EB Dependents can use FB Quota but EB PD that would be really good for us. Off course clarification from attorney is always a good idea.
Our intention is to findout if CIS interpretation is correct. If spouse can stay in the country with EAD and AP and if Primary gets GC first. It won't matter much becos, that EAD will not have any strings attached on same or similar etc. So we should be OK.
more...
dpp
07-28 11:51 AM
This argument applies to EB3 and EB1 also. Also, we already crossed that line of proving that no other qualified is available. Even EB3 does the same. So, you are asking to audit everybody?
You agree it or not, from USCIS/Congress point of view,
Order of preference is, EB1 -> EB2 -> EB3.
If you are eligible for EB1/EB2, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
If we were to buy this weak attempt at making a 'logical point', I would be glad to give Ron a call and have his folks look into YOUR respective EB2 applications and find out if there REALLY was "NO" qualified US worker available for that job. Want to play that game?
You agree it or not, from USCIS/Congress point of view,
Order of preference is, EB1 -> EB2 -> EB3.
If you are eligible for EB1/EB2, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
If we were to buy this weak attempt at making a 'logical point', I would be glad to give Ron a call and have his folks look into YOUR respective EB2 applications and find out if there REALLY was "NO" qualified US worker available for that job. Want to play that game?
desi_scorpion
08-02 10:32 AM
Thanks for activile asking the right questions (where the 140 was approved - nsc or tsc) on trakiitt. Thx
more...
flthere
07-22 03:34 PM
Don't worry EB2 Dude! Nothing is going to happen. You will still enjoy the enhanced status that you currently have. The EB3 folks like myself have far too much lethargy/timidness to do anything. The fact that they are still in EB3 after so many years is proof of that. :D
Only after USCIS starting publishing the 485 inventory did the EB3s understand that they waited all along in vain and started porting to EB2. And now when EB3 guys want to move up to EB2, their employers are telling them that they too are in a helpless situation coz they can now find American citizens for the same position.
Only after USCIS starting publishing the 485 inventory did the EB3s understand that they waited all along in vain and started porting to EB2. And now when EB3 guys want to move up to EB2, their employers are telling them that they too are in a helpless situation coz they can now find American citizens for the same position.
2010 tattoo The War of the Worlds
desi3933
07-10 04:54 PM
And, yes, *legally* speaking, if an employment is at-will, it can't be "permanent." That is, if an employer fires you (for performance or downturn) , you just can't sue him on the ground that you were promised a "permanent" job, can you?
You are wrong, again!. ;)
I said this before, Permanent job does not mean "forever", it simple means it has no fixed end date (i.e. indefinite duration). That said, most of the Permanent Jobs are, in fact, at will jobs.
.
You are wrong, again!. ;)
I said this before, Permanent job does not mean "forever", it simple means it has no fixed end date (i.e. indefinite duration). That said, most of the Permanent Jobs are, in fact, at will jobs.
.
more...
simple1
05-02 01:07 AM
Thanks a lot lost_in_migration for providing supporting docs.
I strongly believe none will be affected with this correct interpretation of EB dependents must not use ebquota.
4. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
From the text highlighted above can we infer that EB principal applicant's PD will be applied to EB dependent (irrespective of whether the visa number is taken from EB or FB) ?
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb81683 8a4
203(d) => Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
same status can be EB GC or just GC ?? If it is EB GC then this thread can RIP
I strongly believe none will be affected with this correct interpretation of EB dependents must not use ebquota.
4. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
From the text highlighted above can we infer that EB principal applicant's PD will be applied to EB dependent (irrespective of whether the visa number is taken from EB or FB) ?
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb81683 8a4
203(d) => Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
same status can be EB GC or just GC ?? If it is EB GC then this thread can RIP
hair war of the worlds tripod
kg318
04-24 10:18 AM
What wrong he did? Nothing illegal but certainly not the best practise. Atleast he has been insensitive to his former employer.
what in the world makes this insensitive. h1b employees are not the bonding labours to the employers. If the employee leaves the company within 2 or 3 month after all the pain company had taken like spending for h1b filing training or providing placement, then that would be insensitive. After 2 yrs of serving, if the employee wants to look out for something better, employer shud make the exit smooter. And some else said earlier that its only employees who force employers for GC. i do not think so. If u see any advertisements posted by desi employers, the packages come along with GC process. they highlight GC point to attract the employees. yes it is true that most of the employees look out for GC for settlement. but that doesn't mean they force their employers who are not ready to do it. they might choose someone who offered GC process as a part of the package they r offered in the first. in such cases the chances of employers who do not offer GC process to get h1b's drop down drastically. thats the reason they offer GC.
Also GC makes long term commitment between an employer and an employee.
Everyone knows how long GC process is gonna take. So for all the yrs h1b's r holded to their employers, which is definetly making the employers business lot more easier. so why in the world an employer especially desi's wouldn't want to file GC?????
what in the world makes this insensitive. h1b employees are not the bonding labours to the employers. If the employee leaves the company within 2 or 3 month after all the pain company had taken like spending for h1b filing training or providing placement, then that would be insensitive. After 2 yrs of serving, if the employee wants to look out for something better, employer shud make the exit smooter. And some else said earlier that its only employees who force employers for GC. i do not think so. If u see any advertisements posted by desi employers, the packages come along with GC process. they highlight GC point to attract the employees. yes it is true that most of the employees look out for GC for settlement. but that doesn't mean they force their employers who are not ready to do it. they might choose someone who offered GC process as a part of the package they r offered in the first. in such cases the chances of employers who do not offer GC process to get h1b's drop down drastically. thats the reason they offer GC.
Also GC makes long term commitment between an employer and an employee.
Everyone knows how long GC process is gonna take. So for all the yrs h1b's r holded to their employers, which is definetly making the employers business lot more easier. so why in the world an employer especially desi's wouldn't want to file GC?????
more...
jsb
11-02 11:56 AM
I was confident on this before, you have just made me super confident.
I have been saying all along that one can get a same/similar job after 180 days irrespective of the whether I-140 was approved or not. I don't know why some people / lawyers spread so much mis-information on this topic.
cjain:
Necessity of 2nd I-140 (if original I-140 denied after 180 days) by new employer is a bit vague and debatable. That's why there are different opinions. For argument sake, if 1st I-140 is approved after, say 360 days, and the beneficiary is already working for the 2nd employer (after waiting for 182 days), what is the sanctity of 1st employer being willing and capable of hiring at this time when there is no intention of beneficiary to work for him.
Bottom line is (I am contracdicting my own argument of previous post), longer the USCIS takes in approving 1st I-140, less is the need of 2nd I-140 by the new employer.
There are always grey areas in law, otherwise we don't need lawyers:).
I have been saying all along that one can get a same/similar job after 180 days irrespective of the whether I-140 was approved or not. I don't know why some people / lawyers spread so much mis-information on this topic.
cjain:
Necessity of 2nd I-140 (if original I-140 denied after 180 days) by new employer is a bit vague and debatable. That's why there are different opinions. For argument sake, if 1st I-140 is approved after, say 360 days, and the beneficiary is already working for the 2nd employer (after waiting for 182 days), what is the sanctity of 1st employer being willing and capable of hiring at this time when there is no intention of beneficiary to work for him.
Bottom line is (I am contracdicting my own argument of previous post), longer the USCIS takes in approving 1st I-140, less is the need of 2nd I-140 by the new employer.
There are always grey areas in law, otherwise we don't need lawyers:).
hot war of the worlds tripod
kondur_007
07-28 02:08 PM
As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, I am now posting information that explains why this "horizontal" spill occurred and no amount of campaign will reverse it (other than change in law).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
more...
house The War of the Worlds OST- The
unitednations
03-08 08:22 PM
If many EB3-I folks are getting GCs then why is EB3-I PD stuck in 2001? Shouldn't it move?
One other note; those eb3 to eb2 conversoins original priority dates were 2003 in eb3.
One other note; those eb3 to eb2 conversoins original priority dates were 2003 in eb3.
tattoo WAR OF THE WORLDS
sertasheep
05-05 06:35 AM
Most of us can relate to the discomfiture and concerns that our members have. Hang in there, I often listen to either Natasha Bedingfield's "Unwritten" to find inspiration (or Shahrukh's Kal Ho Na Ho title song). Find inspiration in something, direct your energies towards something positive, and your quality of life will get enhanced even amidst duress. Write about your experiences, share your grief, and make your voice heard via the various media efforts at IV.
more...
pictures The War of the Worlds,
n2b
08-13 11:18 AM
any LUD?
Nope, No LUD change on my I140
Nope, No LUD change on my I140
dresses house 2011 War of the Worlds
eb3_nepa
07-10 10:01 AM
Can you please put this is text/html and feed to search spiders on google etc?
First off let us change the name of this thread from "Gandhigiri to DOS" to "Munnabhaigiri to DOS".
Gandhiji sent flowers to NO ONE.
First off let us change the name of this thread from "Gandhigiri to DOS" to "Munnabhaigiri to DOS".
Gandhiji sent flowers to NO ONE.
more...
makeup house WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005,
crzyBanker
11-17 09:08 PM
Done
girlfriend house The War of the Worlds
hiUS
09-17 12:49 PM
Call USCIS and enquire about your card and also verify if your address in their system is correct. Also, get an appt with local USCIS office. All the best!!!
Called USCIS couple of times but I did not get the right response till now. They used to end the call abruptly.
But just now I called again, she told that they need to upload the Biometrics from CSC and she will do that. She told that I will get the card in 30 days...may be the regular time which they mention.
And she told not to take any Infopass appoitment and just to wait for 30 days.
Called USCIS couple of times but I did not get the right response till now. They used to end the call abruptly.
But just now I called again, she told that they need to upload the Biometrics from CSC and she will do that. She told that I will get the card in 30 days...may be the regular time which they mention.
And she told not to take any Infopass appoitment and just to wait for 30 days.
hairstyles war of the worlds 1953
samirpatel08
09-26 05:57 PM
I applied on July 23rd, and pkg was received on July 24th.
My checks got cashed yesterday, Sept 25th.
Not sure which center processed them yet... and no receipt numbers...
Things are moving...
Samir :)
My checks got cashed yesterday, Sept 25th.
Not sure which center processed them yet... and no receipt numbers...
Things are moving...
Samir :)
Daisy
06-08 02:57 PM
That was comforting !
simple1
05-08 02:31 PM
we are talking about inclusion logic here. Not the exclusion logic.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Do you see anywhere in INA mentioning that "EB-dependents should NOT be filed in EB-category". How is it a "mis-interpretation" then?
Again like I mentioned before you can archive the same goal (which you care about) via a different approach.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Do you see anywhere in INA mentioning that "EB-dependents should NOT be filed in EB-category". How is it a "mis-interpretation" then?
Again like I mentioned before you can archive the same goal (which you care about) via a different approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment