unbreakable
12-22 02:18 PM
This link http://www.techcrunch.com/layoffs/ would give an idea of what's happening with tech jobs around the world.
wallpaper Tagged as: Zayn Malik. edit.
qplearn
10-09 10:45 AM
We are talking two different things here. You are saying about AC-21. The OP is asking about retaining PD. The way you can retain your PD after I-140 approval is :-
You file a new labor with the new employer - once it is approved - you need to file a new I-140 application and attach the old approved application with it - this would ensure that your PD will become the PD from the old case.
Difference with AC21 is - in the case of AC21, you just switch jobs and your current GC process continues - you do not have to file a new labor,140 etc.
Dilbert_cal:
Does this mean that with AC-21, I can just switch jobs (provided it is similar), and that my PD etc remains the same and that I don't have to do my labor and I-140 again? My I-485 has been filed for more than a year now (my 140 is also approved), and while I would like to change my job, I don't want to do the whole thing again.
Your response will be HIGHLY appreciated, bcuz you seem to know this stuff well.
qplearn
You file a new labor with the new employer - once it is approved - you need to file a new I-140 application and attach the old approved application with it - this would ensure that your PD will become the PD from the old case.
Difference with AC21 is - in the case of AC21, you just switch jobs and your current GC process continues - you do not have to file a new labor,140 etc.
Dilbert_cal:
Does this mean that with AC-21, I can just switch jobs (provided it is similar), and that my PD etc remains the same and that I don't have to do my labor and I-140 again? My I-485 has been filed for more than a year now (my 140 is also approved), and while I would like to change my job, I don't want to do the whole thing again.
Your response will be HIGHLY appreciated, bcuz you seem to know this stuff well.
qplearn
perm
07-03 11:12 AM
sent to chicago tribune and WGN 9 TV
Thanks
Thanks
2011 One Direction#39;s Zayn Malik And
gsrknth
03-09 05:02 PM
I would suggest you to renew it here in US. If you don't have time to mail in and receive , then you can visit the consulate and get in back the same day. I am sure it would lot of time in India :-)
more...
shrayus
05-28 01:08 PM
e-filed on 19th April and got the confirmation receipt by post on 23nd April. After that no updates. Anyone facing this issue?
Mine was e-filed 8th April at NSC. No response yet.
EB2-India
PD July 2006
Mine was e-filed 8th April at NSC. No response yet.
EB2-India
PD July 2006
wata
09-29 02:35 PM
Becareful,
Later on Nebraska Center will have their own Secondary I-485 bulletin.
:D
i've filed my 140 on the thrid week of May and still waiting. NSC is so freakin slow. Just like a backed up traffic which moves at a pace of 1 mile per half hour:eek: :eek: :eek:
Later on Nebraska Center will have their own Secondary I-485 bulletin.
:D
i've filed my 140 on the thrid week of May and still waiting. NSC is so freakin slow. Just like a backed up traffic which moves at a pace of 1 mile per half hour:eek: :eek: :eek:
more...
grupak
06-20 09:27 AM
Lets get busy. We have our work cut out for us. We will get the bills to the house, senate and the President's desk.
Join your state chapters for details.
Join your state chapters for details.
2010 cause i want zayn malik and
smsthss
11-19 01:26 PM
I received RFE on my 140 on nov 15th. I came to know about this when i checked the status online. It says on Nov 15th we mailed you a notice requesting further evidence . I-140 Receipt date is dec 11 2006. I do not yet know what the RFE is about. How many days does it take for the RFE to arrive normally ??
more...
LIDIYA
09-13 08:29 PM
Date you filed - July 2nd
Receipt Date - AUG 27 (or very close to it. Sorry, I don't remember actual date)
Service center - TSC
If EAD received - SEP 1st (both EAD's)
FP - SEP 8th (both)
SSN - applied on SEP 6, received on SEP 13th (today)
Good luck!
Receipt Date - AUG 27 (or very close to it. Sorry, I don't remember actual date)
Service center - TSC
If EAD received - SEP 1st (both EAD's)
FP - SEP 8th (both)
SSN - applied on SEP 6, received on SEP 13th (today)
Good luck!
hair Rebecca Ferguson: #39;Zayn Malik
Macaca
03-07 08:24 PM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle. Note: Authors are immigration lawyers.
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 isthe party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing,9 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 isthe party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing,9 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.
more...
131313
June 10th, 2005, 10:37 AM
Just a bump...and my two cents.
I don't own a D70, I have 10D but...I work in a local camera shop and sell D70's, left and right I might add. I'm hearing quite a bit about this backfocusing issue but nobody seems to be referring to it in the same manner. Most people are just saying their images are soft. At first it seemed like the problem was mainly happening for the people who were used to P/S cameras or simply not used to Nikon's AF system, so we basically gave suggestions similar to what you find here and told them that they could still return the cameras to Nikon if they were in warranty. Anyway, my one co-worker that doesn't shoot Canon buys a D70 and sure enough, he's complaining about soft focus. At middle apertures (on the kit lens, mind you) like 5.6 and 8 his images look sorta acceptable, but not tack sharp. We tried out the 12-24 and got better results (maybe just a sharper lens overall?), as well as with the 10mm fisheye, and of course all of the longer zooms, 80-200, and 200-400 were sharp. Could it just be that the kit lens, which nearly everyone has is just garbage? This guy is now seriously considering the 20D.
I don't own a D70, I have 10D but...I work in a local camera shop and sell D70's, left and right I might add. I'm hearing quite a bit about this backfocusing issue but nobody seems to be referring to it in the same manner. Most people are just saying their images are soft. At first it seemed like the problem was mainly happening for the people who were used to P/S cameras or simply not used to Nikon's AF system, so we basically gave suggestions similar to what you find here and told them that they could still return the cameras to Nikon if they were in warranty. Anyway, my one co-worker that doesn't shoot Canon buys a D70 and sure enough, he's complaining about soft focus. At middle apertures (on the kit lens, mind you) like 5.6 and 8 his images look sorta acceptable, but not tack sharp. We tried out the 12-24 and got better results (maybe just a sharper lens overall?), as well as with the 10mm fisheye, and of course all of the longer zooms, 80-200, and 200-400 were sharp. Could it just be that the kit lens, which nearly everyone has is just garbage? This guy is now seriously considering the 20D.
hot In love with Zayn Malik,
xlr8r
10-19 06:11 PM
That's pretty much what my lawyer told me.
Okay. I was able to talk to my attorney just a few minutes ago. He said, to do interfiling , you do not need to have PD current based on new I-140 as this is just a case update with new 140 information. He said that in any case, your 485 will be picked based on PD. I found him very very confident when he was telling me all this info to me.
Okay. I was able to talk to my attorney just a few minutes ago. He said, to do interfiling , you do not need to have PD current based on new I-140 as this is just a case update with new 140 information. He said that in any case, your 485 will be picked based on PD. I found him very very confident when he was telling me all this info to me.
more...
house One Direction#39;s Zayn Malik: I
coralfl
10-01 08:57 PM
I just came back from india. Flew via Frankfrut (Lufthansa). Lufthansa was bad. Frankfrut was dirty, no customer service, service Reps are rude. Next time I will avoid Frankfrut. AND I will not pay a dime for transit visa. period.
American airlines was trying to stop me boarding the plane as the CSR was not aware that if someone has AP they would not need transit visa in Frankfrut. I had to fight and make them call Frankfrut to confirm.
Might not be pertinent but American Airlines food was horrible and tasteless. They were running out of food.
American airlines was trying to stop me boarding the plane as the CSR was not aware that if someone has AP they would not need transit visa in Frankfrut. I had to fight and make them call Frankfrut to confirm.
Might not be pertinent but American Airlines food was horrible and tasteless. They were running out of food.
tattoo ZAYN MALIK TWITTER - Page 7
arnet
08-29 01:11 PM
Can IV contact some of our members in and around Dallas area to attend this meeting? IV can help them to prepare the key points regd our retrogression problems/solutions and the urgency to implement this solution. so that, it will be easier for them to present it to the hearing committee.
Thanks.
Good find retropain.
It seems this is one of the last and only hearings that concerns high skiiled immigrants. Most of the hearings have been focussed on undocumented immigrants and border security.
Thanks.
Good find retropain.
It seems this is one of the last and only hearings that concerns high skiiled immigrants. Most of the hearings have been focussed on undocumented immigrants and border security.
more...
pictures Zayn Malik is allegedly
ajcates
03-19 02:06 PM
Yeah there's nothing offensive about that. I mean, if we're being silly i find all the ones that use the colour black offensive. It's RACIST!
I voted for the serif one. Looks good!
You didn't offend anyone(well not me)� just provoked them, which I believe is a good thing.
I voted for the serif one. Looks good!
You didn't offend anyone(well not me)� just provoked them, which I believe is a good thing.
dresses It#39;s the ZAYN MALIK GALLERY!
god_bless_you
09-27 01:14 PM
The large drop in competitiveness (is that a word?) in the U.S. is largely attributed to the immigrant population posting to message boards during work hours!
That's one way correct as most of High skills immigrants struck to same jobs from last 3 to 5 years with same responsibilities due to back logs and retrogression :)
That's one way correct as most of High skills immigrants struck to same jobs from last 3 to 5 years with same responsibilities due to back logs and retrogression :)
more...
makeup Zayn Malik / Rebecca Ferguson
subrarama
02-21 10:42 AM
Hi-
How early can I apply for the H1B extension. My current visa expires in mid of June 2008. How many days in advance can I apply for my extension.
Thanks
How early can I apply for the H1B extension. My current visa expires in mid of June 2008. How many days in advance can I apply for my extension.
Thanks
girlfriend Direction◦Zayn Malik
Jerrome
03-24 01:39 PM
i have come across a website http://www.corp-corp.com/. It looks like it has lots of openings(esp for contract positions)
Please understand that i am not a owner,operator or promoter of this website. So don't blame me if this is not good.
If i am not supposed to provide any website links here, please delete this posting.
Please understand that i am not a owner,operator or promoter of this website. So don't blame me if this is not good.
If i am not supposed to provide any website links here, please delete this posting.
hairstyles Zayn Malik is not marrying
dan19
02-08 05:54 PM
Read this...United Nations had posted this in some other forum.
>>>>
Here is the easiest reading. It is from November 2005 bulletin. They specifically stated that the 7% limit was going to apply.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/b...letin_2712.html
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
The backlog reduction efforts of both Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Labor continue to result in very heavy demand for Employment-based numbers. The amount of cases currently being processed is sufficient to use all available numbers in many categories. The level of demand in the Employment categories is expected to be far in excess of the annual limits, and once established, cut-off date movements are likely to be slow.
WHAT CAUSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CUT-OFF DATES?
The Visa Office subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.” For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are only 3,000 applicants, the category is considered “Current”.
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number. For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are 15,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 5,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 5,001st applicant.
WILL THERE BE CUT-OFF DATES FOR ANY ADDITIONAL FOREIGN STATES IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
It may be necessary to establish a cut-off date for the “All Chargeability Areas” Second preference category at some point during the second half of the fiscal year. It is too early to estimate whether future demand will warrant such action. As of October 1st, cut-off dates for the First and Second preferences for China and India were established due to heavy demand; cut-off date movement is expected to be limited until a demand pattern has been determined.
WHY ARE THERE CUT-OFF DATES THIS YEAR AS OPPOSED TO PREVIOUS YEARS, WHEN THE CATEGORIES WERE CURRENT?
While the Employment categories had been “Current” for almost four years, several important factors affected the decision to implement cut-offs for FY-2006.
Prior to July 2001, demand for Employment numbers was such that cut-off dates were in effect for many categories, and that is the case once again for FY-2006.
The reasons the Employment categories had become current were:
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) recaptured a “pool” of 131,000 Employment numbers unused in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and allowed those recaptured numbers to be used by the oversubscribed countries, and
The substantial decline in demand for numbers for adjustment of status cases prevented the annual limits from being reached for several years.
In FY we are faced with continuing heavy demand due to the DHS and DOL backlog reduction efforts, along with an Employment limit which is approximately 40% lower than that of FY-2005. The lower annual Employment limit is a result of the virtual elimination of the “pool” of recaptured AC21 numbers, returning us to the pre-July 2001 situation.
WHAT ABOUT SCHEDULE A NUMBERS?
The 50,000 Schedule A numbers will provide relief to many Employment preference applicants, since any Schedule A applicant whose priority date is beyond the relevant Employment preference cut-off date can be processed and charged against the 50,000 limit. It is expected that Schedule A numbers will be available on a “Current” basis throughout all of FY-2006.
HOW IS THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China – mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
>>>>
Here is the easiest reading. It is from November 2005 bulletin. They specifically stated that the 7% limit was going to apply.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/b...letin_2712.html
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
The backlog reduction efforts of both Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Labor continue to result in very heavy demand for Employment-based numbers. The amount of cases currently being processed is sufficient to use all available numbers in many categories. The level of demand in the Employment categories is expected to be far in excess of the annual limits, and once established, cut-off date movements are likely to be slow.
WHAT CAUSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CUT-OFF DATES?
The Visa Office subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.” For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are only 3,000 applicants, the category is considered “Current”.
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number. For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are 15,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 5,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 5,001st applicant.
WILL THERE BE CUT-OFF DATES FOR ANY ADDITIONAL FOREIGN STATES IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
It may be necessary to establish a cut-off date for the “All Chargeability Areas” Second preference category at some point during the second half of the fiscal year. It is too early to estimate whether future demand will warrant such action. As of October 1st, cut-off dates for the First and Second preferences for China and India were established due to heavy demand; cut-off date movement is expected to be limited until a demand pattern has been determined.
WHY ARE THERE CUT-OFF DATES THIS YEAR AS OPPOSED TO PREVIOUS YEARS, WHEN THE CATEGORIES WERE CURRENT?
While the Employment categories had been “Current” for almost four years, several important factors affected the decision to implement cut-offs for FY-2006.
Prior to July 2001, demand for Employment numbers was such that cut-off dates were in effect for many categories, and that is the case once again for FY-2006.
The reasons the Employment categories had become current were:
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) recaptured a “pool” of 131,000 Employment numbers unused in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and allowed those recaptured numbers to be used by the oversubscribed countries, and
The substantial decline in demand for numbers for adjustment of status cases prevented the annual limits from being reached for several years.
In FY we are faced with continuing heavy demand due to the DHS and DOL backlog reduction efforts, along with an Employment limit which is approximately 40% lower than that of FY-2005. The lower annual Employment limit is a result of the virtual elimination of the “pool” of recaptured AC21 numbers, returning us to the pre-July 2001 situation.
WHAT ABOUT SCHEDULE A NUMBERS?
The 50,000 Schedule A numbers will provide relief to many Employment preference applicants, since any Schedule A applicant whose priority date is beyond the relevant Employment preference cut-off date can be processed and charged against the 50,000 limit. It is expected that Schedule A numbers will be available on a “Current” basis throughout all of FY-2006.
HOW IS THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China – mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
furiouspride
03-31 04:33 PM
Thanks guys for your reply. This was tremendous knowledge that you guys dumped in.
Let's say if I am on the green card (EAD) , then still I can not evade this tax situation correct ?I mean if they pay me and I pay to the company in India who is really responsible for the service.
Right now, with the current setup, the company in India will have to pay corporate taxes on their overseas income. If I'm not mistaken, IT companies have a reduced tax rate in India. All in all, the 4pc should not be a big damper.
Let's say if I am on the green card (EAD) , then still I can not evade this tax situation correct ?I mean if they pay me and I pay to the company in India who is really responsible for the service.
Right now, with the current setup, the company in India will have to pay corporate taxes on their overseas income. If I'm not mistaken, IT companies have a reduced tax rate in India. All in all, the 4pc should not be a big damper.
techbuyer77
09-17 02:54 PM
I think you can get a letter from employer stating that they can not employ you any more. I am not sure if they issue a letter to every person that loses the job. Just make sure that your intention to work with the sponsering employer is documented somehow .
I have an idea here ... just write an email to your boss or HR stating "how good company has been to you and how they helped you with your immigration process and given a choice you would rather work with the same company"
Take a printout of all these emails and save them if you still have a chance. You can use all these to prove if you run into any problems during the naturalization process.
Apart from these things collect the news paper clips or company wide emails that talk about downsizing. These things should help you to prove your intentions if there is a query about your intentions at the time of naturalization.
If you think company will survive for 5 or 10 more years , just keep in touch with your HR
I got a letter saying they can not give me my job back dated 5 days after my approval.
I show up told them I was approved, they say sorry we have not sold anything on those 3 months, we are doing bad, cannot take you back.
They dont have any problems with it and I can wait 10 years to become a citizen if that is what it takes.
I have an idea here ... just write an email to your boss or HR stating "how good company has been to you and how they helped you with your immigration process and given a choice you would rather work with the same company"
Take a printout of all these emails and save them if you still have a chance. You can use all these to prove if you run into any problems during the naturalization process.
Apart from these things collect the news paper clips or company wide emails that talk about downsizing. These things should help you to prove your intentions if there is a query about your intentions at the time of naturalization.
If you think company will survive for 5 or 10 more years , just keep in touch with your HR
I got a letter saying they can not give me my job back dated 5 days after my approval.
I show up told them I was approved, they say sorry we have not sold anything on those 3 months, we are doing bad, cannot take you back.
They dont have any problems with it and I can wait 10 years to become a citizen if that is what it takes.
No comments:
Post a Comment