Blog Feeds
12-01 10:40 PM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
On November 27, 2009, the USCIS announced that 58,900 of 65,000 regular cap petitions have been received. In addition, approximately 20,000 U.S. Master's or higher petitions (i.e. advanced degree petitions) have been received. Any advanced degree petitions received from here...
On November 27, 2009, the USCIS announced that 58,900 of 65,000 regular cap petitions have been received. In addition, approximately 20,000 U.S. Master's or higher petitions (i.e. advanced degree petitions) have been received. Any advanced degree petitions received from here on out will count toward the regular cap of 65,000. The USCIS is still accepting petitions at this time, but it is advised that any H-1B petitions be filed as soon as possible as the USCIS could announce that the cap is closed at any time.
More... (http://www.immigrationlawyersblog.com/2009/12/h1bs_going_fast.html)
On November 27, 2009, the USCIS announced that 58,900 of 65,000 regular cap petitions have been received. In addition, approximately 20,000 U.S. Master's or higher petitions (i.e. advanced degree petitions) have been received. Any advanced degree petitions received from here...
On November 27, 2009, the USCIS announced that 58,900 of 65,000 regular cap petitions have been received. In addition, approximately 20,000 U.S. Master's or higher petitions (i.e. advanced degree petitions) have been received. Any advanced degree petitions received from here on out will count toward the regular cap of 65,000. The USCIS is still accepting petitions at this time, but it is advised that any H-1B petitions be filed as soon as possible as the USCIS could announce that the cap is closed at any time.
More... (http://www.immigrationlawyersblog.com/2009/12/h1bs_going_fast.html)
wallpaper Florida Gators Logo
smsthss
07-18 12:25 PM
anybody on this !!
Macaca
08-01 08:03 PM
The Speaker In Charge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101628.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Harold Meyerson (meyersonh@washpost.com), August 1, 2007
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
2011 College Logos (Vector Format)
hunkuncontrolled
03-04 05:53 PM
I think people who haven't applied for their green card until now won't ever be able to do so....DOL won't ever make PERM certifications easier.
more...
Macaca
07-31 05:23 PM
It's Time to End Or Reduce The Cloture Clog (http://rollcall.com/issues/53_15/guest/19599-1.html) By Robert Weiner and John Larmett, July 31 2007
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
new_From_newyork
11-15 11:24 AM
When is my green card expected?
Please provide me an educative link regarding this EAD-Green card process.
I am new to immigration voice.
Thanks
Please provide me an educative link regarding this EAD-Green card process.
I am new to immigration voice.
Thanks
more...
andy garcia
03-23 08:01 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/22/kennedy_mccain_partnership_falters/
If he wants to be a Republican candidate, he has to have his name removed from the Bill otherwise forget about it.
If he wants to be a Republican candidate, he has to have his name removed from the Bill otherwise forget about it.
2010 Florida Gator Fatheads - www.
dolicus
12-02 02:04 PM
My I-140 PD is pending since May 1Oth, But no Approval.
The dates are Hoax, I dont know what Nebraska is doing,
the Processing says August but I am from May but no Approvals yet.
Thanks
The dates are Hoax, I dont know what Nebraska is doing,
the Processing says August but I am from May but no Approvals yet.
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
03-15 09:30 AM
A few bright spots mixed in with a lot of not so much... Family 1st - Advancement of worldwide, China and India numbers by two weeks to 08 July 2004. Mexico moves forward two weeks to 15 October 1992. The Philippines moves up two months to 1 March 1994.Family 2A - Worldwide, India, China and the Philippines numbers advance two months to 01 June 2006. Mexico jumps six months to 01 January 2005. Family 2B - Worldwide, India and China numbers advances one month to 01 March 2002. Mexico is stalled at 15 June 1992. The Philippines advances three weeks...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/april-visa-bulletin-shows-mixed-results.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/april-visa-bulletin-shows-mixed-results.html)
hair Florida gators logo
sk.aggarwal
02-09 11:51 PM
No. You should be good.
more...
deepakd
02-06 02:05 AM
Guys
Just want to know my options here and here is my scenario:
I am on H1-B and my 6 years of H1B is going to complete on March so I have almost 1 more year to complete my 6 years of h1-B
Right now, I have my LC and I-140 approved from my present employer.
Now, I am thinking about moving onto a new job where the new employer is ready to start my GC immediately I take the new job.
My question is:
If I take the new job, would I get my new H-1B for 3 years since my I-140 with old employer/current employer is already approved ?
I don't have the copy of my I-140 but I think I can get it.
Thanks
DD
Just want to know my options here and here is my scenario:
I am on H1-B and my 6 years of H1B is going to complete on March so I have almost 1 more year to complete my 6 years of h1-B
Right now, I have my LC and I-140 approved from my present employer.
Now, I am thinking about moving onto a new job where the new employer is ready to start my GC immediately I take the new job.
My question is:
If I take the new job, would I get my new H-1B for 3 years since my I-140 with old employer/current employer is already approved ?
I don't have the copy of my I-140 but I think I can get it.
Thanks
DD
hot Rate this Florida Gators Logo
newuser
09-02 02:44 PM
Would like to see how many are still pending under EB2 before 2005. Please take the poll.
more...
house florida-gators
fasterthanlight�
04-29 10:48 PM
Do as the title suggests.
tattoo Florida Gators Logo Photo
rima1805
12-22 03:01 PM
I need some clarity on this issue. I know AC21 helps switching jobs within the same field/duties, but here is my line of thought... I'm past 2yrs on my H1 and I plan to do a part-time MBA (~3yrs) after which I'd like to be open on the kind of job I do.
Now, my questions are: (1) Does switching to EAD really pause the H1 clock?
(2) Is that triggered by filling a new I-9 form alone, or by entering the US on AP, or both?
(3) I guess, I should be able to apply for a fresh H1 with a new company and switch back from the EAD to new H1, right?
I know I'll lose the GC priority, especially wife's EAD, but I'm debating if it's worth losing my career aspirations? My info: Nov '06 EB2 PD, approved I-140, July 3 I-485 receipt and my present company will file our EAD/APs as long as it is necessary.
Looking for your input..... Thanks!
Now, my questions are: (1) Does switching to EAD really pause the H1 clock?
(2) Is that triggered by filling a new I-9 form alone, or by entering the US on AP, or both?
(3) I guess, I should be able to apply for a fresh H1 with a new company and switch back from the EAD to new H1, right?
I know I'll lose the GC priority, especially wife's EAD, but I'm debating if it's worth losing my career aspirations? My info: Nov '06 EB2 PD, approved I-140, July 3 I-485 receipt and my present company will file our EAD/APs as long as it is necessary.
Looking for your input..... Thanks!
more...
pictures Florida Gators Logo - 2006
looivy
05-06 09:58 PM
Gurus,
I wanted to see if anybody on a US visitor visa travelled from US (New York) to Canada and back on Amtrak. I have following questions.
1. Where do you surrender I-94 (at NY station or at the US border entering into Canada).
2. Amtrak's website does not say much about the entry to US in detail. If you can provide detail that would be very helpful. What if they do a detailed check on you and you miss the train, what are your options. I assume they give you a new I-94 at the US-Canada border when re-entering USA.
3. Any other useful information that you can provide will be helpful.
Thanks.
I wanted to see if anybody on a US visitor visa travelled from US (New York) to Canada and back on Amtrak. I have following questions.
1. Where do you surrender I-94 (at NY station or at the US border entering into Canada).
2. Amtrak's website does not say much about the entry to US in detail. If you can provide detail that would be very helpful. What if they do a detailed check on you and you miss the train, what are your options. I assume they give you a new I-94 at the US-Canada border when re-entering USA.
3. Any other useful information that you can provide will be helpful.
Thanks.
dresses The Florida Gators Hyperdunk
ashokmads
02-13 04:10 PM
Hi All,
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
more...
makeup Florida Gators Logo Belt
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:40 AM
In our December 2009 newsletter, we explained how the employment-based (EB) priority date system works. See http://shusterman.com/dec09.html#4 In this article, we provide you with materials which may make it easier for you to estimate when you will be able to adjust your status (AOS) and become a permanent resident. First of all, how many people have pending applications for AOS in the EB categories? The USCIS states that, as of September 23, 2009, there were 234,000. Of this total, 75,000 were in the EB-2 category and 151,000 were in the EB-3 category. Of course, not all persons with EB priority...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/12/eb-immigrants-how-long-before-i-get-my-green-card-part-2-7.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/12/eb-immigrants-how-long-before-i-get-my-green-card-part-2-7.html)
girlfriend Florida Gators Logo Sticker
ksvreg
04-12 02:42 PM
I was keep observing the PERM approval rate trend for the past one year. Approval rate is very slow. But it is suddently jumped since last month. Looks like it is a good time to start filing another labor. I am in the same boat. Trying for a new employer for EB2.
hairstyles University of Florida Gators
gcgalore
12-19 05:31 PM
Gurus, I am on H-1B visa doing a project with 'abc' client who is the client of 'X' company and pays to my H-1B employer 'Y', I get paid from 'Y'. I started on this project on H-1B visa but now I have EAD(spouse of primary applicant) and want to change my status to EAD. The X company says that they have non compete agreement with Y company(my employer) and can't bring me on board unless I get email from my employer stating they have no objection me moving to EAD. My employer is not ready to give me that email(for obvious reasons.. after all it is a desi employer).
I want to find out if there is a way out..also I never signed any agreement with my employer..in fact I don't even have a copy of offer letter. The only agreement I have is with X company that I can't go back to the same client for one year, the day I end this project. I am based in Boston MA.
I want to find out if there is a way out..also I never signed any agreement with my employer..in fact I don't even have a copy of offer letter. The only agreement I have is with X company that I can't go back to the same client for one year, the day I end this project. I am based in Boston MA.
KALIDAS
03-10 02:31 PM
If you can get to the soft copy of the checks usually provided by most of the banks, you can find the receipt number on the rear/back side of the check.
chanduv23
03-21 08:58 PM
Dear New Yorkers, lets keep promoting this group as well as bumping this thread so that more members will join
Join IV-NY (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny) mailing list. Please promote this group and add more members
Join IV-NY (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny) mailing list. Please promote this group and add more members
No comments:
Post a Comment