kumar1
10-27 12:06 AM
Something I got from murthy.com
Employment Contracts for B-1 Domestics ("Nannies")
Posted Apr 23, 2004
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) recently issued an update on the requirements for employment contracts for B-1 visa domestic attendants. Regular readers may recall our July 18, 2003 MurthyBulletin article, Visa Opportunities for Household and Domestic Attendants, available on MurthyDotCom, outlining the visa eligibility requirements for B-1 domestic attendants or "nannies."
Lawful permanent residents are not generally eligible to sponsor domestic attendants. In the case of United States citizens, only those who are temporarily returning to the U.S. from abroad may sponsor domestic attendants if their stays in the U.S. are temporary in nature and will not exceed four years. However, most A, G, and NATO visa holders and most other nonimmigrant visa holders (B, E, F, H, I, J, L, M, O, P, Q, R, or TN) are eligible to sponsor domestic attendants. The DOS advisory is helpful since it reminds consular officers of the availability of this visa category under law. The advisory will also help more people to take advantage of the B-1 domestic attendant visa. Many people from certain countries are accustomed to having domestic help and may consider bringing such help with them from their home countries to the United States. Details of the requirements are outlined in the above-referenced article.
One of the requirements for bringing in a domestic attendant is that there must be a signed employment contract between the employer and the nanny. Generally, the contract must stipulate that the employer guarantees the greater of the prevailing wage or the minimum wage, that the employer will provide free room and board, and that s/he will be the sole provider of employment to the B-1 attendant. The recent update from the DOS discusses additional terms that should be included in the employment agreement.
With respect to determining the prevailing wage, the DOS considers the U.S. Department of Labor's prevailing wage statistics to most closely reflect a fair living wage for servants and personal employees. It instructs consular officers to rely upon these figures when determining whether employment contract provisions satisfy applicable prevailing wage requirements. Providing a sense of the wage requirements, the DOS listed examples of hourly prevailing wage information for several regions. The Level I hourly prevailing wage for 2004 for "Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners" is $8.84/hour in the New York City area, $6.71/hour in the Washington, DC area, and $6.15/hour in the Miami, FL area. Until these figures were suggested in this DOS update, no one was exactly sure what figures the consular officers would consider when approving the B-1 visa for a domestic attendant.
The DOS further advised that consular officers should ensure that the terms of the contract are generally clear. The DOS discussed additional contract terms; in particular, payment for time on premises after hours, employee's retention of passport, and employee's right to leave the premises when not on duty. The DOS reminded consular officers that, at the time of the interview, they should inform all domestic workers that they will be subject to and protected by U.S. law while in the United States, and that their contracts create legal obligations on the parts of both the employee and the employer. The DOS further instructed the consular officers that they should make domestic workers aware that the telephone number for police and emergency services is 911, and that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services maintains a telephone hotline for reporting abuse of domestic employees, which is available on their website.
The recent advisory from the DOS is helpful to protect B-1 domestic attendant employees, since many of them tend to be relatively uneducated, with little or no understanding of the U.S. laws governing and protecting them while they are in the United States. It prevents abuse of a system meant to benefit various parties and provides the umbrella of protections available under U.S. laws.
Employment Contracts for B-1 Domestics ("Nannies")
Posted Apr 23, 2004
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) recently issued an update on the requirements for employment contracts for B-1 visa domestic attendants. Regular readers may recall our July 18, 2003 MurthyBulletin article, Visa Opportunities for Household and Domestic Attendants, available on MurthyDotCom, outlining the visa eligibility requirements for B-1 domestic attendants or "nannies."
Lawful permanent residents are not generally eligible to sponsor domestic attendants. In the case of United States citizens, only those who are temporarily returning to the U.S. from abroad may sponsor domestic attendants if their stays in the U.S. are temporary in nature and will not exceed four years. However, most A, G, and NATO visa holders and most other nonimmigrant visa holders (B, E, F, H, I, J, L, M, O, P, Q, R, or TN) are eligible to sponsor domestic attendants. The DOS advisory is helpful since it reminds consular officers of the availability of this visa category under law. The advisory will also help more people to take advantage of the B-1 domestic attendant visa. Many people from certain countries are accustomed to having domestic help and may consider bringing such help with them from their home countries to the United States. Details of the requirements are outlined in the above-referenced article.
One of the requirements for bringing in a domestic attendant is that there must be a signed employment contract between the employer and the nanny. Generally, the contract must stipulate that the employer guarantees the greater of the prevailing wage or the minimum wage, that the employer will provide free room and board, and that s/he will be the sole provider of employment to the B-1 attendant. The recent update from the DOS discusses additional terms that should be included in the employment agreement.
With respect to determining the prevailing wage, the DOS considers the U.S. Department of Labor's prevailing wage statistics to most closely reflect a fair living wage for servants and personal employees. It instructs consular officers to rely upon these figures when determining whether employment contract provisions satisfy applicable prevailing wage requirements. Providing a sense of the wage requirements, the DOS listed examples of hourly prevailing wage information for several regions. The Level I hourly prevailing wage for 2004 for "Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners" is $8.84/hour in the New York City area, $6.71/hour in the Washington, DC area, and $6.15/hour in the Miami, FL area. Until these figures were suggested in this DOS update, no one was exactly sure what figures the consular officers would consider when approving the B-1 visa for a domestic attendant.
The DOS further advised that consular officers should ensure that the terms of the contract are generally clear. The DOS discussed additional contract terms; in particular, payment for time on premises after hours, employee's retention of passport, and employee's right to leave the premises when not on duty. The DOS reminded consular officers that, at the time of the interview, they should inform all domestic workers that they will be subject to and protected by U.S. law while in the United States, and that their contracts create legal obligations on the parts of both the employee and the employer. The DOS further instructed the consular officers that they should make domestic workers aware that the telephone number for police and emergency services is 911, and that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services maintains a telephone hotline for reporting abuse of domestic employees, which is available on their website.
The recent advisory from the DOS is helpful to protect B-1 domestic attendant employees, since many of them tend to be relatively uneducated, with little or no understanding of the U.S. laws governing and protecting them while they are in the United States. It prevents abuse of a system meant to benefit various parties and provides the umbrella of protections available under U.S. laws.
wallpaper tattoo rihanna short
aquarianf
06-14 04:40 PM
12. If you have skin test +tive ( > 1cm) and xray negative than CS may want you to go to Local Health dept or specialist for clearance.
13. It is advisable to see your PCP in above case. PCP can recommend you for some other test or CT-SCAN. It may be possible that very tiny TB infection is not visible in xray but visible in CT-SCAN. Further examination is good for you and your family.
ok this is what i am assuming the process is:
1. get appointment
2. go to doctor show any immunization records that u may have
3. get addtional vaccinations if not in record
4. get skin test
5. go home
6. go back to doctor after 48-72 hrs to get the skin test results evaluated
7. if +ve for tb get chest xray
8. go to chest xray place if doc does not have it
9. get results from chest x ray and go back to doc
10. wait for him to complete the forms
11. go back and collect the forms
would any docs verify this..or ppl who have been there done that?
i am just trying to plan of the number of days its going to require to get this damn thing done.
13. It is advisable to see your PCP in above case. PCP can recommend you for some other test or CT-SCAN. It may be possible that very tiny TB infection is not visible in xray but visible in CT-SCAN. Further examination is good for you and your family.
ok this is what i am assuming the process is:
1. get appointment
2. go to doctor show any immunization records that u may have
3. get addtional vaccinations if not in record
4. get skin test
5. go home
6. go back to doctor after 48-72 hrs to get the skin test results evaluated
7. if +ve for tb get chest xray
8. go to chest xray place if doc does not have it
9. get results from chest x ray and go back to doc
10. wait for him to complete the forms
11. go back and collect the forms
would any docs verify this..or ppl who have been there done that?
i am just trying to plan of the number of days its going to require to get this damn thing done.
qplearn
12-12 03:03 PM
Now what about the case wherein one cannot file 485 when the visa numbers are not current? Was it done with the intention of available resources/workload management at USCIS?
And I have one more suggestion. Let's fight to entirely stop new H1Bs (yes numbersusa will never oppose that). That might be the only way to get out of this mess. At the very least, if you don't like my first idea, let's lobby to get rid of substitute labor....
Maybe I am finally losing it :)
And I have one more suggestion. Let's fight to entirely stop new H1Bs (yes numbersusa will never oppose that). That might be the only way to get out of this mess. At the very least, if you don't like my first idea, let's lobby to get rid of substitute labor....
Maybe I am finally losing it :)
2011 Paris Hilton Short Hairstyles
gcisadawg
04-06 10:02 AM
Individuals with valid visas are turned back every now and then for a variety of reasons. This is nothing new, and it is very rare. There is no reason to panic. A close friend of mine was turned back in 2000 when he arrived on a B2 business visa because he responded unsatisfactorily to the query "What is the purpose of your visit?". I believe he said something that alluded to the fact that he was here to execute a programming assignment, when in fact he was visiting to discuss specifications with the client to be taken back for an offshore project. This was in good economic times, when the Dot Com bubble was still around.
Incidentally, the same person is now a Green Card holder. :)
This happened even in 1998. My colleague at Tata infotech (Bangalore) was sent back immediately because of the unsatisfactory answer to "What is the purpose of your visit?" She was on B1 visa and answered something like programming.
Seems like some of the stories are bit over the top and I truly hope that they are just rumors and not real incidents.
Incidentally, the same person is now a Green Card holder. :)
This happened even in 1998. My colleague at Tata infotech (Bangalore) was sent back immediately because of the unsatisfactory answer to "What is the purpose of your visit?" She was on B1 visa and answered something like programming.
Seems like some of the stories are bit over the top and I truly hope that they are just rumors and not real incidents.
more...
gc_on_demand
09-28 05:42 PM
How come there are people with PD 2008 able to file AOS. Eb3 row and India both didnot cross 2007 so there is no scope of cross chargebility.
nmdial
08-10 01:15 PM
Hillarious! woooo Indian Forgein Ministry!!!! wah wah...
It was just a question. There was no need to be derisive.
It was just a question. There was no need to be derisive.
more...
rockstart
07-15 11:35 AM
Sir malaGCPahije,
I was just replying to some one's post calling it unfair that Eb3 2001 is waiting in Eb2 2005 is moving ahed. All I was trying to convey was all these years Eb1 was current ( so well over 6 years lead over Eb2 & 3) but no one cried wolf or unfair all of sudden on Friday Eb2 moves forward and we get these cries of unfair . What does this mean? I agree we need to come up with idea's for Eb3 I but the only one I can think of is visa recapture. If some has better idea that does not put is Eb2 Vs Eb3 then I am all for supporting it.
I would please request not to enter the argument about different categories being current and what is fair and not. There are other threads which are discussing the same.
I started this thread for ideas for the future to help severely retrogressed categories. Not to cause any trouble. If anyone can provide an idea, please participate. Please do not fight.
I was just replying to some one's post calling it unfair that Eb3 2001 is waiting in Eb2 2005 is moving ahed. All I was trying to convey was all these years Eb1 was current ( so well over 6 years lead over Eb2 & 3) but no one cried wolf or unfair all of sudden on Friday Eb2 moves forward and we get these cries of unfair . What does this mean? I agree we need to come up with idea's for Eb3 I but the only one I can think of is visa recapture. If some has better idea that does not put is Eb2 Vs Eb3 then I am all for supporting it.
I would please request not to enter the argument about different categories being current and what is fair and not. There are other threads which are discussing the same.
I started this thread for ideas for the future to help severely retrogressed categories. Not to cause any trouble. If anyone can provide an idea, please participate. Please do not fight.
2010 rihanna short hairstyles
n2b
07-02 02:23 PM
So what is the interpretation of this memo for the guys on AC21? We can't fall back to H1B now!
more...
aka
12-13 10:24 PM
A lot of the views expressed in this thread are those of people that support FAIR and numbersusa. Sad!
http://www.steinreport.com/archives/009849.html
http://www.steinreport.com/archives/009849.html
hair rihanna haircuts 2009.
485Mbe4001
09-29 04:10 PM
Please remember that IV was the only organization making an effort to get the data. The data displayed on the USCIS page is also a result of the the efforts made by IV members (my thanks to the members who supported and/or participated the effort).
The PD movement in the next VB will tell us which data is accurate.
Based on the public data, it seems that the data that USCIS gave IV is way off , totally wrong and useless. Given the fact that IV got this "data" just one or two days before the real one was publicly available, it seems IV is totally scammed. I heard IV paid 5000 US dollars for this data? What a big scam from the government!
IV should totally ask for a refund.
The PD movement in the next VB will tell us which data is accurate.
Based on the public data, it seems that the data that USCIS gave IV is way off , totally wrong and useless. Given the fact that IV got this "data" just one or two days before the real one was publicly available, it seems IV is totally scammed. I heard IV paid 5000 US dollars for this data? What a big scam from the government!
IV should totally ask for a refund.
more...
raydon
01-01 11:29 PM
I would want to say that we need atleast 10 people for lobbying from each state for it to be effective. Congressmen give priority to their constituents and might not take it seriously if only 1 or 2 people show up. I know this from past experience when there were just three of us doing the lobbying and we didn't have constituents for some members of Congress. It became difficult to justify that we have issues impacting the immigrant community.
Hence I would urge people to participate in the lobbying activities as well. The rally is important, there's no doubt about that. But the lobbying is also important in getting our issues across to the members of Congress who could potentially decide the future of bills providing relief such as the recapture of visas etc.
Hence I would urge people to participate in the lobbying activities as well. The rally is important, there's no doubt about that. But the lobbying is also important in getting our issues across to the members of Congress who could potentially decide the future of bills providing relief such as the recapture of visas etc.
hot Rihanna Short Layered Crop
Jimi_Hendrix
12-12 08:38 PM
Qplearn and Nycgal,
My problem with going with NumbersUSA is that they are an anti-immigrant organization. You are sending mixed signals to politicians and our supporters if you side with anything that NumbersUSA suggests.
I am free to express my views like you are. So I reiterate the core will not be interested in any synergies with NumbersUSA. For that matter I do not need your permission to express my opinion. Both of you can go ahead and support each other as much as you like
Jimi
My problem with going with NumbersUSA is that they are an anti-immigrant organization. You are sending mixed signals to politicians and our supporters if you side with anything that NumbersUSA suggests.
I am free to express my views like you are. So I reiterate the core will not be interested in any synergies with NumbersUSA. For that matter I do not need your permission to express my opinion. Both of you can go ahead and support each other as much as you like
Jimi
more...
house rihanna short hairstyles 2009.
jonty_11
11-20 10:41 AM
I personally feel we should pursue independently of illegal immigration, as I have a feeling that CIR with illegal immigration issues will be dragged into the next presidential elections, it is too sensitive a issue for both parties. Politicians never change and Hispanic vote is very important now that hispanics are the majority-minority in this country.
tattoo rihanna short hairstyles
pappu
07-20 12:28 PM
Some members may face access to donor forum issues. It maybe due to several reasons.
- Their Monthly subscription may have expired/canceled. If that is the case, please renew your subscriptions and we will be able to provide access within a day.
- All recurring contribution signed up prior to 6/6/09 have to sign-up again. We have made some changes in the system. We had sent emails to some such members. If you took action as per the email we sent, and signed up again then you should be having access at this time and can ignore signing up again. If you check your paypal account, it will show that no payment was processed after the initial contribution were made as part of the recurring sign-up. The glitch was fixed sometime back and the system kicked-in yesterday to revoke access based on the recent contribution history. Since the past recurring contribution is not active for these users, it would be great if they could please sign-up for the recurring contribution and help the community effort.
- If you already have a monthly recurring contribution and this access problem is in error, please notify us immediately with your payment details and we will fix the problem. We try our best to manage this access, however there may have been errors. Sorry for this inconvenience.
- In future whenever you contribute to IV do always let us know your IV handle/contribute from your logged in status so that it is easy for the system to associate the contributions with your handle. Else, we have to find out and associate it manually.
We urge everyone interested in supporting ImmigrationVoice more actively to sign up for recurring contributions. This will help IV pursue its agenda more aggressively. The immigration issue is now heating up and we are involved in advocacy efforts at several levels. We have a lot of work going on/planned and in the coming days many updates will be posted.
- Sometimes subscriptions fail for reasons like credit card may have expired. IN that case you may have to renew your subscription to get access.
Please give us at least a couple of days to provide you access once you have signed up. Note that we verify each member before granting access to anyone. We do not guarantee or provide access to everyone who contributes to IV.
Thanks for your support to ImmigrationVoice
IV members,
It will be extremely helpful if you could send in your paypal receipt that contains the
1. userid
2. subscription # or transaction #
3. most recent transaction date for this subscription
4. IF it is a recurring donation - for how many months
5. your phone numbers
If you could send these details to either ivcoordinator@gmail.com or PM it to StarSun, - your info can be processed faster. Incomplete info will take longer to verify.
If you continue to have questions, please call me 202-386-6250.
Without providing the above information - do not demand anything. For members who have provided the info, I will be getting in touch with you.......thank you for your patience.
- Their Monthly subscription may have expired/canceled. If that is the case, please renew your subscriptions and we will be able to provide access within a day.
- All recurring contribution signed up prior to 6/6/09 have to sign-up again. We have made some changes in the system. We had sent emails to some such members. If you took action as per the email we sent, and signed up again then you should be having access at this time and can ignore signing up again. If you check your paypal account, it will show that no payment was processed after the initial contribution were made as part of the recurring sign-up. The glitch was fixed sometime back and the system kicked-in yesterday to revoke access based on the recent contribution history. Since the past recurring contribution is not active for these users, it would be great if they could please sign-up for the recurring contribution and help the community effort.
- If you already have a monthly recurring contribution and this access problem is in error, please notify us immediately with your payment details and we will fix the problem. We try our best to manage this access, however there may have been errors. Sorry for this inconvenience.
- In future whenever you contribute to IV do always let us know your IV handle/contribute from your logged in status so that it is easy for the system to associate the contributions with your handle. Else, we have to find out and associate it manually.
We urge everyone interested in supporting ImmigrationVoice more actively to sign up for recurring contributions. This will help IV pursue its agenda more aggressively. The immigration issue is now heating up and we are involved in advocacy efforts at several levels. We have a lot of work going on/planned and in the coming days many updates will be posted.
- Sometimes subscriptions fail for reasons like credit card may have expired. IN that case you may have to renew your subscription to get access.
Please give us at least a couple of days to provide you access once you have signed up. Note that we verify each member before granting access to anyone. We do not guarantee or provide access to everyone who contributes to IV.
Thanks for your support to ImmigrationVoice
IV members,
It will be extremely helpful if you could send in your paypal receipt that contains the
1. userid
2. subscription # or transaction #
3. most recent transaction date for this subscription
4. IF it is a recurring donation - for how many months
5. your phone numbers
If you could send these details to either ivcoordinator@gmail.com or PM it to StarSun, - your info can be processed faster. Incomplete info will take longer to verify.
If you continue to have questions, please call me 202-386-6250.
Without providing the above information - do not demand anything. For members who have provided the info, I will be getting in touch with you.......thank you for your patience.
more...
pictures dresses Rihanna Short haircut with rihanna haircuts 2009. rihanna haircuts.
quizzer
07-30 01:16 PM
Called all and left voice mails.
I will try calling them again the afternoon.
I will try calling them again the afternoon.
dresses rihanna haircuts 2009
ramus
07-03 09:10 PM
[
Actual AAA...
QUOTE=drona]Is that the actual AAA or the American Aliens Association!
:)[/QUOTE]
Actual AAA...
QUOTE=drona]Is that the actual AAA or the American Aliens Association!
:)[/QUOTE]
more...
makeup Rihanna short hairstyle
sanju_eb3
04-30 06:21 PM
Sravani,
Please visit the following forum on immigrationportal - http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=196367
I've seen that people are able to get approval after proper evaluation. Please read the above thread and it will give you good pointers.
Priderock:
Thanks a lot for your reply and very helpful info. I also got my EB-3 I-140 approved a year ago with the same company now I am working with. But the PD is Nov 2002.
My employer filed another labor via PERM for EB-2 category by changing my current position and the labor is approved couple of weeks ago and my attorney applied for 140 (PP) and 485 concurrently based on my previously approved EB3 I-140 PD. My attorney received the RFE today regarding the 3 years Engineering degree.
Just now I spoke with a Trustforte evaluator, I sent them the copy of the RFE letter and all my academic transcripts. They analyzed my transcripts and agreed to do an expanded evaluation by a professor for $295 (one day rush service) that indicates 3 years Engineering degree is equivalent to US 4 years Bachelors degree. I am keeping my fingers crossed, will keep you guys posted for any more updates.
Please visit the following forum on immigrationportal - http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=196367
I've seen that people are able to get approval after proper evaluation. Please read the above thread and it will give you good pointers.
Priderock:
Thanks a lot for your reply and very helpful info. I also got my EB-3 I-140 approved a year ago with the same company now I am working with. But the PD is Nov 2002.
My employer filed another labor via PERM for EB-2 category by changing my current position and the labor is approved couple of weeks ago and my attorney applied for 140 (PP) and 485 concurrently based on my previously approved EB3 I-140 PD. My attorney received the RFE today regarding the 3 years Engineering degree.
Just now I spoke with a Trustforte evaluator, I sent them the copy of the RFE letter and all my academic transcripts. They analyzed my transcripts and agreed to do an expanded evaluation by a professor for $295 (one day rush service) that indicates 3 years Engineering degree is equivalent to US 4 years Bachelors degree. I am keeping my fingers crossed, will keep you guys posted for any more updates.
girlfriend hairstyles rihanna short hair
walking_dude
01-22 05:07 PM
There's NO new rule!
After AG gave the interpretation, sometimes back, that ONLY permanent residents should be given DLs and before SOS issued the rule, some members wrote to AG explaining the impact it will have on legal immigrants. They received a response stating such fears are unfounded, from AGs office. We were lead to believe that it will impact only illegals.
After that some days pass, and yesterday SOS issues the rule which says legal immigrants won't be given DLs. As things stand today without overturning AGs interpretation, or state legislature passing new law, temporary visa holders in MI cannot get new DL.
What is the new rule? So, the AGs office assured that legal folks wont be impacted? Is that the new rule u r talking about? So, all our interpretations were wrong? Pls clarify.
After AG gave the interpretation, sometimes back, that ONLY permanent residents should be given DLs and before SOS issued the rule, some members wrote to AG explaining the impact it will have on legal immigrants. They received a response stating such fears are unfounded, from AGs office. We were lead to believe that it will impact only illegals.
After that some days pass, and yesterday SOS issues the rule which says legal immigrants won't be given DLs. As things stand today without overturning AGs interpretation, or state legislature passing new law, temporary visa holders in MI cannot get new DL.
What is the new rule? So, the AGs office assured that legal folks wont be impacted? Is that the new rule u r talking about? So, all our interpretations were wrong? Pls clarify.
hairstyles images Short Hairstyles: Rihanna rihanna short hair 2009.
raj3078
01-23 01:42 PM
I believe in lawsuits. This country does also.. Lets face it nothing actually gets done unless there is fear of law.
I believe in equal rights (excluding voting rights, as we are legals here). We came from the front door. Stood in line at visa embassies, paid visa fees etc etc. We did not cross the border. We pay federal, state and social security taxes as US citizens..So while giving licenses, there should be nothing on it which discriminates us from the rest. They dont discriminate when they take our taxes. Blood and Money have the same color.
Lets talk in the same language as these ppl who have no respect for legal high skilled immigrants.
Lets roll!
Well said...My friend brett who is citizen says....America is country in which Lawyers are everywhere....They are the lawmakers and they are the ones who challenge those laws and they are the ones who gets most benefitted....;) Just look at current presidential nominees in DEMs
I believe in equal rights (excluding voting rights, as we are legals here). We came from the front door. Stood in line at visa embassies, paid visa fees etc etc. We did not cross the border. We pay federal, state and social security taxes as US citizens..So while giving licenses, there should be nothing on it which discriminates us from the rest. They dont discriminate when they take our taxes. Blood and Money have the same color.
Lets talk in the same language as these ppl who have no respect for legal high skilled immigrants.
Lets roll!
Well said...My friend brett who is citizen says....America is country in which Lawyers are everywhere....They are the lawmakers and they are the ones who challenge those laws and they are the ones who gets most benefitted....;) Just look at current presidential nominees in DEMs
sankap
01-19 12:40 AM
Simple only. Indians have not needed to brainwash other populations a la Lord Macaulay or invent fine things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism). Hence, why invest in social sciences?
Two major reasons Indians would want to invest in Social Sciences are this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casteism) (invented by Indians) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), both of which are meshed into Indian politics and society and are far divisive and violence-causing than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism).
As for Lord Macaulay, we (Desis) should credit him for being here; see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Macaulay) and this (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html).
Two major reasons Indians would want to invest in Social Sciences are this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casteism) (invented by Indians) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), both of which are meshed into Indian politics and society and are far divisive and violence-causing than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism).
As for Lord Macaulay, we (Desis) should credit him for being here; see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Macaulay) and this (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html).
WeldonSprings
07-04 11:55 PM
In April 2009, Michael Aytes has written in his blog-
Addressing Employment-Based Visa Wait Times
There have been a lot of comments and questions received from readers about employment-based petitions and related applications for adjustment to lawful permanent residence.
This is a complicated subject, so I want to provide a little background. Becoming a permanent resident based on employment can require a number of steps, including obtaining a labor certification from the Department of Labor, receiving approval on a petition for alien worker from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (Form I-140) and obtaining an immigrant visa from the Department of State or being granted adjustment of status from USCIS. In addition, by law there are numerical limits on the number of people who can immigrate to the U.S. each year in most categories. You can see a more detailed explanation about the employment-based visa application process online.
Some readers have asked about the volume of employment applications and delays that have occurred in employment-based visa petition and adjustment application processing in late 2007 and early 2008. There were a number of factors that affected USCIS' handling of these cases during that time. Employers filed more than 234,000 petitions to sponsor foreign workers (Form I-140) as the Department of Labor cleared a large backlog of labor certification applications and implemented new regulations. Adjustment-of-status application filings also soared to nearly 300,000. We attribute the increase in adjustment application filings to a couple things. First, customers' anticipation of USCIS' filing fee increase in July 2007. Second, a unique opportunity for workers and their families to file adjustment applications based on the visa availability date announced in the July 2007 Immigrant Visa Bulletin. Many of these availability dates have since reverted, creating a backlog of adjustment applications that cannot be adjudicated until a visa becomes available.
A few months ago, a customer indicated his frustration that while he can monitor the Visa Bulletin to see how it moves month to month, he still has no idea how many people are waiting in line with pending adjustment applications or how long it may be before USCIS can process and approve his application. We know this customer is not alone! In response to that customer's request, we are working to make this information available on our Web site.
I understand the importance of becoming a permanent resident. I also recognize workers may rightly want to take advantage of the limited provisions in current law that allow certain applicants to change employers without affecting their ability to adjust status. As a result, USCIS has taken the following steps:
* USCIS has increased the emphasis on processing employment-based petitions. Our goal is to complete adjudication on the older I-140 petitions and to process newer petitions within our targeted processing time of four months. We are making progress toward this goal and anticipate reaching this goal by the end of September 2009.
* USCIS is issuing employment authorization documents valid for two years, as needed.
* USCIS is working with the State Department to make sure we use every available visa number. In 2007, we had more visas available in the family-based categories than were needed, so as permitted by law, we transferred those available family-based visas for use in the employment-based application process.
I recognize that this is a difficult and complex situation and USCIS is working hard to make improvements and to increase transparency in our processes.
Mike Aytes
Acting Deputy Director, USCIS
Reference-http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/labels/USCIS.html
So, that means USCIS knows that I-485 EB applicants can just use EAD card for employment pending their AOS. Hope that relieves the community of the Neufeld memo.
The Neufeld memo definition of non-immigrant status is not H-1 or L-1. Since, this is a dual status memo.
If people remember, in Aug-Sept. 07 when folks applied for AOS and AP, the law said that they could not travel pending their receipt of their AP (since receipting was delayed those days); but anyone who had H-1 or L-1 could travel. So, non-immigrant does not apply to H-1 or L-1 visas.
Some folks have mentioned in this forum and others that their H1/H4 was canceled without prejudice after the AOS interview at the local office. That means the memo is contradictory to their practice. So is USCIS forcing AOS applicants on H1/H4 to accrue unlawful presence by revoking their non-immigrant visa?
Addressing Employment-Based Visa Wait Times
There have been a lot of comments and questions received from readers about employment-based petitions and related applications for adjustment to lawful permanent residence.
This is a complicated subject, so I want to provide a little background. Becoming a permanent resident based on employment can require a number of steps, including obtaining a labor certification from the Department of Labor, receiving approval on a petition for alien worker from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (Form I-140) and obtaining an immigrant visa from the Department of State or being granted adjustment of status from USCIS. In addition, by law there are numerical limits on the number of people who can immigrate to the U.S. each year in most categories. You can see a more detailed explanation about the employment-based visa application process online.
Some readers have asked about the volume of employment applications and delays that have occurred in employment-based visa petition and adjustment application processing in late 2007 and early 2008. There were a number of factors that affected USCIS' handling of these cases during that time. Employers filed more than 234,000 petitions to sponsor foreign workers (Form I-140) as the Department of Labor cleared a large backlog of labor certification applications and implemented new regulations. Adjustment-of-status application filings also soared to nearly 300,000. We attribute the increase in adjustment application filings to a couple things. First, customers' anticipation of USCIS' filing fee increase in July 2007. Second, a unique opportunity for workers and their families to file adjustment applications based on the visa availability date announced in the July 2007 Immigrant Visa Bulletin. Many of these availability dates have since reverted, creating a backlog of adjustment applications that cannot be adjudicated until a visa becomes available.
A few months ago, a customer indicated his frustration that while he can monitor the Visa Bulletin to see how it moves month to month, he still has no idea how many people are waiting in line with pending adjustment applications or how long it may be before USCIS can process and approve his application. We know this customer is not alone! In response to that customer's request, we are working to make this information available on our Web site.
I understand the importance of becoming a permanent resident. I also recognize workers may rightly want to take advantage of the limited provisions in current law that allow certain applicants to change employers without affecting their ability to adjust status. As a result, USCIS has taken the following steps:
* USCIS has increased the emphasis on processing employment-based petitions. Our goal is to complete adjudication on the older I-140 petitions and to process newer petitions within our targeted processing time of four months. We are making progress toward this goal and anticipate reaching this goal by the end of September 2009.
* USCIS is issuing employment authorization documents valid for two years, as needed.
* USCIS is working with the State Department to make sure we use every available visa number. In 2007, we had more visas available in the family-based categories than were needed, so as permitted by law, we transferred those available family-based visas for use in the employment-based application process.
I recognize that this is a difficult and complex situation and USCIS is working hard to make improvements and to increase transparency in our processes.
Mike Aytes
Acting Deputy Director, USCIS
Reference-http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/labels/USCIS.html
So, that means USCIS knows that I-485 EB applicants can just use EAD card for employment pending their AOS. Hope that relieves the community of the Neufeld memo.
The Neufeld memo definition of non-immigrant status is not H-1 or L-1. Since, this is a dual status memo.
If people remember, in Aug-Sept. 07 when folks applied for AOS and AP, the law said that they could not travel pending their receipt of their AP (since receipting was delayed those days); but anyone who had H-1 or L-1 could travel. So, non-immigrant does not apply to H-1 or L-1 visas.
Some folks have mentioned in this forum and others that their H1/H4 was canceled without prejudice after the AOS interview at the local office. That means the memo is contradictory to their practice. So is USCIS forcing AOS applicants on H1/H4 to accrue unlawful presence by revoking their non-immigrant visa?
No comments:
Post a Comment