kookoo
08-03 05:15 PM
I worked for a firm for last couple of years and then moved to another firm. Now I want to apply for a Perm process and need the Experience letter. My previous employer has issued me the experience letter without my roles and responsibility:
It was an unprotected word file, so I changed it and incorporated the roles and responsibilty and my self submitted it to my employer; Now i am afraid if they are going to verify it.
1. What is the INS verification process?
2. Do employer can verifty it by Fax?
3. What can happen if INS came to know that everything was fine except the roles and responsibilities was included afterwards?
It was an unprotected word file, so I changed it and incorporated the roles and responsibilty and my self submitted it to my employer; Now i am afraid if they are going to verify it.
1. What is the INS verification process?
2. Do employer can verifty it by Fax?
3. What can happen if INS came to know that everything was fine except the roles and responsibilities was included afterwards?
wallpaper abc graffiti letters. Graffiti Letter C Spray; Graffiti Letter C Spray
GCisLottery
11-02 10:35 AM
Folks,
Please don't give wrong information so authoritatively :)
Labor Certification(LC) for Green Card processing has nothing to with Labor Condition Agreement(LCA) attached to H1-B.
If you moved to a different state from intended work place when your employer filed H1-B (extension included), your company need to get a new LCA.
Do not confuse between (Permanent) Labor Certification from Labor Condition Agreement, simply because of the abbreviations(LC vs LCA).
Disclaimer: I'm NOT an immigration specialist. This can not be taken as an immigration advice.
Please don't give wrong information so authoritatively :)
Labor Certification(LC) for Green Card processing has nothing to with Labor Condition Agreement(LCA) attached to H1-B.
If you moved to a different state from intended work place when your employer filed H1-B (extension included), your company need to get a new LCA.
Do not confuse between (Permanent) Labor Certification from Labor Condition Agreement, simply because of the abbreviations(LC vs LCA).
Disclaimer: I'm NOT an immigration specialist. This can not be taken as an immigration advice.
anurakt
01-21 02:12 PM
I joined Immigration voice on orkut. My name is Chandrakanth
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
2011 graffiti alphabet letters
umndude
06-17 03:19 PM
Let's say there is a problem. What can you do to fix it? You want to start GC fresh?
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
more...
spicy_guy
04-08 04:58 PM
I believe the intention of not moving too much beyond jul 06 , may be to make some spill over benfit happen to EB3 also. If they open the gate for EB2 now, lots of 485 application may come in and there may not be spill over to EB3. :)
Krupa
See how bad EB3 I shape is...
7,100 until 2002 Dec. That means, 2.5+ years before it hits Jan 1, 2003.
What about the people with PD > 2005. 33,400 / 2800 per year. 11+ years. :)
Retire!
Krupa
See how bad EB3 I shape is...
7,100 until 2002 Dec. That means, 2.5+ years before it hits Jan 1, 2003.
What about the people with PD > 2005. 33,400 / 2800 per year. 11+ years. :)
Retire!
laborlabor
02-22 09:46 PM
Here is my honest opinion.... you guys need to highlight the fact that IV is equlally concerned about PBEC issue. This is what i have heard and read from a lot of folks... Just to let u guys know that even my app is stuck with PBEC..
more...
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
2010 Applique Graffiti Alphabet AND
sriramkalyan
01-02 11:19 AM
!!! Canada!!!
more...
eb3_nepa
04-13 09:16 AM
Hello,
There was a lot of talk about the time between the passing of the CIR and it's implementation. I was wondering exactly how much time would it take from the time the bill was passed (assuming it had our provisions) and it actually becoming a law. Some say 3 months some say 6 months. What is the real number?
There was a lot of talk about the time between the passing of the CIR and it's implementation. I was wondering exactly how much time would it take from the time the bill was passed (assuming it had our provisions) and it actually becoming a law. Some say 3 months some say 6 months. What is the real number?
hair graffiti letters alphabet.
Sakthisagar
02-24 03:25 PM
I think it is like this, if you apply before hand like 6 month before your Visa expiring date your chances of getting an RFE for client letter is minimal, provided you stick to the same employer and all necessary documents like paystubs, tax pay reciept etc, is submitted.
If you apply for Premium Processing, SURE HIT you will get RFE for the END client contract copy...
I have got only for an year extension last Sept 2009 --[total 10 years in US--changed my H1B company on 2003] -applied on Premium processing,--I-140 approved Jun 2005, missed the July 2007 fiasco... I am planning to apply on ordinary on April 2010 again.
So Key is do not go for Premium Processing if you could, apply 6 months before your H1B visa expires, inform the end client and vendor that you need a contract copy send it to USCIS if there is an RFE, if they cannot give you the copy for business reasons. Be Ready to reply the RFE.
Good Luck to all, and I wish all of us to be on EAD, before this 2010 year end.
May GOD Bless
If you apply for Premium Processing, SURE HIT you will get RFE for the END client contract copy...
I have got only for an year extension last Sept 2009 --[total 10 years in US--changed my H1B company on 2003] -applied on Premium processing,--I-140 approved Jun 2005, missed the July 2007 fiasco... I am planning to apply on ordinary on April 2010 again.
So Key is do not go for Premium Processing if you could, apply 6 months before your H1B visa expires, inform the end client and vendor that you need a contract copy send it to USCIS if there is an RFE, if they cannot give you the copy for business reasons. Be Ready to reply the RFE.
Good Luck to all, and I wish all of us to be on EAD, before this 2010 year end.
May GOD Bless
more...
jungalee43
12-11 11:01 AM
Very good catch. South Korea (& Philipines) falls under ROW and got a lot more EB3 visas than India. So if EB3 is born in South Korea, s/he would get GC in three years where as we are rotting for last eight years. The only reason is the country of birth. How unfair and discriminatory! Is this pre-planned?? And hardly any lawmaker is concerned. Hard to believe this is USA.
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
S Korea 1,923 7,125 4,727
Philippines 310 2,057 5,625
UK 3,472 2,043 909
Canada 2,368 3,404 1,207
Mexico 1,457 1,348 4,021
Now the question is why is there no 7% quota for South Korea ?
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
S Korea 1,923 7,125 4,727
Philippines 310 2,057 5,625
UK 3,472 2,043 909
Canada 2,368 3,404 1,207
Mexico 1,457 1,348 4,021
Now the question is why is there no 7% quota for South Korea ?
hot Abc graffiti alphabet bubble.
seeking_GC
09-23 06:31 PM
Thanks for this info. Would you mind sharing the fax number? Thanks in advance.
I assume you mean the fax number for NSC - it is 402-219-6171.
I assume you mean the fax number for NSC - it is 402-219-6171.
more...
house Graffiti alphabet letters A-Z
anindya1234
07-17 10:32 PM
The link is not working
tattoo graffiti letters abc. graffiti letters abc. Graffiti Alphabet Letters ABC;
tcsonly
09-07 11:13 AM
Sent email yesterday with the details to lobbyday@immigrationvoice.org, and IV-Socal co-ordinators: Drona & Ramesh.
-C.
-C.
more...
pictures Alphabet Graffiti Letter A
mayhemt
08-30 12:02 PM
Not illegal if you are also present in the recording.
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
hopefulgc is right.....laws vary by each state, but basic rule comes down to atleast one party on both ends consenting for recording. In this case, you have consented yourself for recording & recorded it. Also only if want to make it public this rule applies, If you are recording for your own reference it doesn't apply (disclaimer: consult a professional lawyer...)
Even I faced a similar situation with my manager (of course a desi). He would promise some things (like promotions) & the end of the year he would completely deny any promising like that. So I used my cellphone (most of the cellphones come with a voice recorder feature these days). Whenever he would take me for one-to-one review meetings, i would simply activate the voice record shortcut & keep my cellphone in my upper left pocket; later I when I played I laugh out loud for hours & hours for all the smooth bullshit he talks. Of course I never went public with them, kind of keeping them as secret weapon.
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
hopefulgc is right.....laws vary by each state, but basic rule comes down to atleast one party on both ends consenting for recording. In this case, you have consented yourself for recording & recorded it. Also only if want to make it public this rule applies, If you are recording for your own reference it doesn't apply (disclaimer: consult a professional lawyer...)
Even I faced a similar situation with my manager (of course a desi). He would promise some things (like promotions) & the end of the year he would completely deny any promising like that. So I used my cellphone (most of the cellphones come with a voice recorder feature these days). Whenever he would take me for one-to-one review meetings, i would simply activate the voice record shortcut & keep my cellphone in my upper left pocket; later I when I played I laugh out loud for hours & hours for all the smooth bullshit he talks. Of course I never went public with them, kind of keeping them as secret weapon.
dresses Graffiti Alphabet Letters
PDDec05
06-29 11:44 PM
Thank you for your input, do you know where I should call, if there is a number and so on? There is absolutely no information on any place on fixing 485 form.
I just called the 1-800 number on their website, but your lawyer may know someone in person at the USCIS.
I just called the 1-800 number on their website, but your lawyer may know someone in person at the USCIS.
more...
makeup graffiti alphabet,graffiti
PMisYMMV
09-03 11:55 AM
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
Thank you for sharing the boat. Although, it is better than being lonely, I don't want anyone in this dilemma.
I hope we both get ours soon, hopefully by EOD today as other poster was wishing.
Thank you for sharing the boat. Although, it is better than being lonely, I don't want anyone in this dilemma.
I hope we both get ours soon, hopefully by EOD today as other poster was wishing.
girlfriend graffiti alphabet fonts green
GCNirvana007
04-08 04:50 PM
Also, did you know we have some action items? and did you notice some people donate time and money?
Winner - Thanks for the recommendation. You should have stopped right there. I ask questions to understand how it functions and whats going on. If you dont know the answer. Just be quiet. Stop making smartass comments. I dont have time go back and forth on it.
Winner - Thanks for the recommendation. You should have stopped right there. I ask questions to understand how it functions and whats going on. If you dont know the answer. Just be quiet. Stop making smartass comments. I dont have time go back and forth on it.
hairstyles in alphabet Graffiti,eine
boreal
07-08 08:29 PM
None... as I did not seem to see anywhere in the filing instruction that W2 is needed... unless there is some change. Who knows nowadays...;)
Correct - None is the answer! My law firm (Fragomen) didnt ask for them when they submitted my docs on JUly 2. Maybe they are needed if the USCIS comes back with an RFE.
Correct - None is the answer! My law firm (Fragomen) didnt ask for them when they submitted my docs on JUly 2. Maybe they are needed if the USCIS comes back with an RFE.
snhn
04-21 12:10 PM
Hello all,
it used to be that I would look forwared to the dat DOS cam out with their bulletin, hoping that one day i will be current. that day came last month when i became current. Happiness lasted for a few days, only to realize that those dates means nothing unless your processing center is current as well.
I am from Texas, so the dreadfull TSC is the center processing my application. Last date is march 15, and i am assuming they dont follow the same pattern as DOS, that is to say updating their bulletins every month on a specific date. I am also assumin that their date usually move in increments of days rather then monts, like DOS is doing now days. My PD is August 2005. That leave me 4 months or so before anyone starts to work on my case. I have seen a couple of have been called for interveiws with PD around same time as mine. I dont see any changes on my RD message either. It still sayd, we recevied blaha blah... Generic message letting me know they have gotten my case.
What do you all think when the date usually change. Since I am current, my day to look foward is not on DOS websiter, but USCIS website, hoping that they get to processing Auguts dates soon. I am afraid that DOS might retrogress again, and my current PD will beceome thing of the past.
it used to be that I would look forwared to the dat DOS cam out with their bulletin, hoping that one day i will be current. that day came last month when i became current. Happiness lasted for a few days, only to realize that those dates means nothing unless your processing center is current as well.
I am from Texas, so the dreadfull TSC is the center processing my application. Last date is march 15, and i am assuming they dont follow the same pattern as DOS, that is to say updating their bulletins every month on a specific date. I am also assumin that their date usually move in increments of days rather then monts, like DOS is doing now days. My PD is August 2005. That leave me 4 months or so before anyone starts to work on my case. I have seen a couple of have been called for interveiws with PD around same time as mine. I dont see any changes on my RD message either. It still sayd, we recevied blaha blah... Generic message letting me know they have gotten my case.
What do you all think when the date usually change. Since I am current, my day to look foward is not on DOS websiter, but USCIS website, hoping that they get to processing Auguts dates soon. I am afraid that DOS might retrogress again, and my current PD will beceome thing of the past.
krishmunn
02-19 12:46 PM
As discussed above with cyrus mehta's blog: This is all discretionary:
My definition f discretionary: "You need a good lawyer which can wrap your sandwich in "golden wrap" and sell it for $45 instead of seeling it in a "brown bag" for $3.75. It's the same sandwich!!" It sounds harsh, but that's the reality when you deal with a demon called "Law and Lawyers".
Simple version: have it worded by a good lawyer to justify it and make it "same or similar". It is the "wrap" that determines the "price".
Good Luck.
Excellent definitiion. and yes that is the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer. Most of immigration related work (GC, H1) is filling forms which even a layman can do, except when it comes to "discretionary" stuff -- that is the acid test for lawyers
My definition f discretionary: "You need a good lawyer which can wrap your sandwich in "golden wrap" and sell it for $45 instead of seeling it in a "brown bag" for $3.75. It's the same sandwich!!" It sounds harsh, but that's the reality when you deal with a demon called "Law and Lawyers".
Simple version: have it worded by a good lawyer to justify it and make it "same or similar". It is the "wrap" that determines the "price".
Good Luck.
Excellent definitiion. and yes that is the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer. Most of immigration related work (GC, H1) is filling forms which even a layman can do, except when it comes to "discretionary" stuff -- that is the acid test for lawyers
No comments:
Post a Comment