learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
wallpaper Alnwick Castle is famous as
Sapkota
02-02 01:06 AM
Hey Guys
I also recieved "Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed" in my mail and I am wondering if anyone with case similar to mine has any answer on this.
I applied "I130 Immigrant Petition For Relative" on Apr. 04.
What could be the message on my case?
Please advise me on what shall I expect?
Thanks in advance
I also recieved "Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed" in my mail and I am wondering if anyone with case similar to mine has any answer on this.
I applied "I130 Immigrant Petition For Relative" on Apr. 04.
What could be the message on my case?
Please advise me on what shall I expect?
Thanks in advance
waiting_4_gc
03-28 06:33 PM
I got the RFE notification in the mail yesterday and here is the RFE info:
The Service acknowledges that you filed your I-485 Employment Based Application (Receipt #) based on your approved 3rd preference I-140 (Receipt #). Service records indicate that you also have an approved 2nd preference I-140 (Receipt #) with a priority date that affords you an available visa. If you wish to transfer this I-485 to your newly approved Form I-140 a request for conversion must be made in writing. If no response is received, USCIS will continue adjudication on the instant I-485 based on your 3rd preference I-140 and will wait for visa availability based on that preference classification".
I had another approved I-140 in EB2 from the client where I worked as a contractor. That company got acquired by another and am not sure if they still support me in the process.
1) Did anyone receive such RFE?
2) Should I send USCIS a letter by requesting them to trasfer my I-485 to EB2?
3) USCIS had issued this RFE on 03/03/10 with 04/03/10 deadline but I had received it yesterday(3/27/10). I have only 1 week to respond back.
Is there a way to buy some more time if i cant respond back in 3-4 business days?
Please advice. I really appreciate your help!
Thanks in advance.
The Service acknowledges that you filed your I-485 Employment Based Application (Receipt #) based on your approved 3rd preference I-140 (Receipt #). Service records indicate that you also have an approved 2nd preference I-140 (Receipt #) with a priority date that affords you an available visa. If you wish to transfer this I-485 to your newly approved Form I-140 a request for conversion must be made in writing. If no response is received, USCIS will continue adjudication on the instant I-485 based on your 3rd preference I-140 and will wait for visa availability based on that preference classification".
I had another approved I-140 in EB2 from the client where I worked as a contractor. That company got acquired by another and am not sure if they still support me in the process.
1) Did anyone receive such RFE?
2) Should I send USCIS a letter by requesting them to trasfer my I-485 to EB2?
3) USCIS had issued this RFE on 03/03/10 with 04/03/10 deadline but I had received it yesterday(3/27/10). I have only 1 week to respond back.
Is there a way to buy some more time if i cant respond back in 3-4 business days?
Please advice. I really appreciate your help!
Thanks in advance.
2011 harry potter castle pictures.
yagw
03-16 12:39 PM
Mine is TSC. Is TSC sending RFEs too? BTW, I Updated my profile.
One thing that is certain is, the uncertainty of the USCIS :) So, no definite answer to if/when you will get RFE.
One thing that is certain is, the uncertainty of the USCIS :) So, no definite answer to if/when you will get RFE.
more...
saurav_4096
08-21 04:06 PM
I dont think there is system in place where It can be tracked for cash worker at GAS Station.
So do not understand what has happened with him ...???:confused:
So do not understand what has happened with him ...???:confused:
sdeshpan
07-22 02:53 PM
If the I-140 has been approved, you are entitled to use the PD on any subsequent I-140 unless it is revoked based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Hello Ann - Is that the case even if the new job has a slightly different job profile than the first one that you have an approved I-140 for? Is there anything specific to keep in mind in terms of same/similar job classification?
Thanks!
Hello Ann - Is that the case even if the new job has a slightly different job profile than the first one that you have an approved I-140 for? Is there anything specific to keep in mind in terms of same/similar job classification?
Thanks!
more...
provine
08-19 05:35 PM
I file pwd around the end of Feb this year. It's still pending. Anyone else is having the same issue? What can I do for this? Ask for tracking number from lawyer and call DOL? Please advise.
I am so frustrated...
I am so frustrated...
2010 Harry Potter Castle 3D
kate123
11-14 09:07 AM
Do not worry I was in similar situation last year and my ex employer was from NJ.. I Complained to DOL and they made him to pay me...
Regarding the experience letter ... I saw in other forums that you can get experience letter from your colleques or Peers who worked with you...
let me know if you have any questions!!
Regarding the experience letter ... I saw in other forums that you can get experience letter from your colleques or Peers who worked with you...
let me know if you have any questions!!
more...
lazycis
02-14 04:42 PM
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the “fingerprint check” described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the “fingerprint check” described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
hair harry potter castle orlando.
masti_Gai
11-07 12:43 PM
Just write a letter addressing the Immigration Officer stating that you reside in xyz area, work for ABC company and you take all the responsibilities like boarding , lodging and traveling expenses of your parents.
Do give them your phone no. so that they can call you and verify in case if they want to.
That would suffice:)
Do give them your phone no. so that they can call you and verify in case if they want to.
That would suffice:)
more...
payur
03-10 07:37 AM
I guess I should agree with Jerrome because I am going to India 2 weeks from now and My friend who recently had been to India mentioned the same. I have asked the same question to my immigration lawyer, I will post it when I get a reply.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
hot harry potter castle.
sunny1000
03-10 03:19 PM
My wife when she went to india did the same. Means Submitted all the i-94 including the one which was with the 797.
While returning from india she did not get the i-94 upto the 797 approval date, she got it upto the Visa expiry date.
When i went to the Border Security Officer mentioned that the i-94 which you receive with 797 is for your reference, you are not supposed to give it to anybody.
I had to apply for the extension because i did't have any proof with me for my wife on the i-94.
I submitted all my I-94s including that on the 797. If you notice closely, they all have the same number on the top left corner. By issuing an I-94 with the 797, USCIS confirms that your original I-94 that you received at the POE has been extended. They are not valid after you leave the country as you get a new I-94 with a new number. You can go to an USCIS office and get your wife's I-94 corrected to the 797 date.
:D
While returning from india she did not get the i-94 upto the 797 approval date, she got it upto the Visa expiry date.
When i went to the Border Security Officer mentioned that the i-94 which you receive with 797 is for your reference, you are not supposed to give it to anybody.
I had to apply for the extension because i did't have any proof with me for my wife on the i-94.
I submitted all my I-94s including that on the 797. If you notice closely, they all have the same number on the top left corner. By issuing an I-94 with the 797, USCIS confirms that your original I-94 that you received at the POE has been extended. They are not valid after you leave the country as you get a new I-94 with a new number. You can go to an USCIS office and get your wife's I-94 corrected to the 797 date.
:D
more...
house harry potter castle. harry
waiting4gc02
11-16 10:34 AM
Is it required to inform USCIS after you change jobs after 180 days using
AC21?
Is it safe to say that if your GC applying company does NOT revoke I-140 after you change jobs, that you are OK not to tell USCIS about your change ?
Thoughts???
AC21?
Is it safe to say that if your GC applying company does NOT revoke I-140 after you change jobs, that you are OK not to tell USCIS about your change ?
Thoughts???
tattoo harry potter castle. Lego Harry Potter #5378; Lego Harry Potter #5378
pan123
10-25 02:39 PM
Guys,
I need urgent answer on this question. Does anybody know how long it's taking for I-140 premium processing? I believe my I-140 will be processed from Nebraska service center.
Thanks,
I need urgent answer on this question. Does anybody know how long it's taking for I-140 premium processing? I believe my I-140 will be processed from Nebraska service center.
Thanks,
more...
pictures harry potter castle lego.
snhn
12-13 09:13 AM
From Austin. In for whatever. Let me know How can I be helpful
dresses harry potter castle. Lego Harry Potter - 4842; Lego Harry Potter - 4842
MetteBB
05-27 05:08 PM
I liked the apple one the best mette. I have added that one up :)
btw: your footer is killing my CPU :P
First of all...thanx!
re your CPU...:huh: How can I fix this? It's a small file (using your very own tut for snow)
/mette
btw: your footer is killing my CPU :P
First of all...thanx!
re your CPU...:huh: How can I fix this? It's a small file (using your very own tut for snow)
/mette
more...
makeup harry potter world orlando.
nfadlalla
03-09 10:20 AM
Receipt Number: WACXXXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I130, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN
Current Status: Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed.
On February 12, 2007, we mailed the document we manufactured based on our earlier approval of this case, and mailed it to the address on we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
what does this mean?...i havnt recieved anything yet....!!!:confused:
Application Type: I130, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN
Current Status: Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed.
On February 12, 2007, we mailed the document we manufactured based on our earlier approval of this case, and mailed it to the address on we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
what does this mean?...i havnt recieved anything yet....!!!:confused:
girlfriend harry potter castle. harry potter castle pictures.
FrankZulu
08-13 11:47 PM
Nothing yet. Once 2nd July is done it should be one or two business days.
hairstyles Castle and other mystical
little_willy
08-05 11:37 PM
Me and my wife along with our 1 year old will be there to show our support.
HRPRO
02-22 02:10 PM
snathan - How different is different enough for USCIS/DOL to be okay with it? Would the num of years of experience be helpful if it was different.
I guess I am trying to figure out if I should let go of this position and wait for another one to come around if it's the current one is not worth pursuing due to potential issues during I140 stage.
Thanks
One more thing to take ino consideration is during the audit, along with your HR department DoL will review similar jobs within your organisation and check the requirements for those jobs. They will have to be similar, else you will have an issue.
I guess I am trying to figure out if I should let go of this position and wait for another one to come around if it's the current one is not worth pursuing due to potential issues during I140 stage.
Thanks
One more thing to take ino consideration is during the audit, along with your HR department DoL will review similar jobs within your organisation and check the requirements for those jobs. They will have to be similar, else you will have an issue.
gc_chahiye
09-25 01:44 PM
hermione,
How to know if name check has been done. Is there a number to call to confirm NC clearance?.
We had FP on 9/19 and saw LUD on 9/20. Called FBI yesterday and they say they sent results to uscis. Does it mean FP and NC clearance? Or NC is a separate entity. Please, let me know
name check is separate from the FP clearance.
How to know if name check has been done. Is there a number to call to confirm NC clearance?.
We had FP on 9/19 and saw LUD on 9/20. Called FBI yesterday and they say they sent results to uscis. Does it mean FP and NC clearance? Or NC is a separate entity. Please, let me know
name check is separate from the FP clearance.
No comments:
Post a Comment