morpheus
04-02 09:44 PM
So if (for example) an H1B worked in the US for a few weeks before their visa became available, are they technically eligible for this? Or perhaps they were out of status for a week or two between jobs? I'm sure many H1's might have been in this situation. It's unclear who this applies to.
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
wallpaper Colorful Animal Print Dresses.
drirshad
04-18 11:18 PM
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
Friday, April 13, 2007
Bills Introduced
There have been two bills introduced which may help our cause and are surely of interest to readers of this Blog.
The first is a re-introduction of the SKIL Bill (S. 1083). The text of the bill has not yet been released to the public. It is expected that this will contain the same retrogression-elimination language that was contained in the 2006 version of the bill. The bill was introduced by Senator Cornyn and cosponsors include Senators Allard (R-CO), Bennett (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), and Lott (R-MS). As readers of this blog may be aware, Sen. Hutchison has long been a leader on Schedule A visa reform.
The second bill (S. 1092) seeks to immediately raise the H-1 quota, and was proposed directly as a result of last week�s immediately-reached H-1 visa cap. Sen. Hagel is the sponsor of this bill. The text of this bill is unavailable at this time as well.
Both bills shortly should be available on THOMAS.
UPDATE: As expected the 2007 version of the SKIL Bill contains favorable language.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Bills Introduced
There have been two bills introduced which may help our cause and are surely of interest to readers of this Blog.
The first is a re-introduction of the SKIL Bill (S. 1083). The text of the bill has not yet been released to the public. It is expected that this will contain the same retrogression-elimination language that was contained in the 2006 version of the bill. The bill was introduced by Senator Cornyn and cosponsors include Senators Allard (R-CO), Bennett (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), and Lott (R-MS). As readers of this blog may be aware, Sen. Hutchison has long been a leader on Schedule A visa reform.
The second bill (S. 1092) seeks to immediately raise the H-1 quota, and was proposed directly as a result of last week�s immediately-reached H-1 visa cap. Sen. Hagel is the sponsor of this bill. The text of this bill is unavailable at this time as well.
Both bills shortly should be available on THOMAS.
UPDATE: As expected the 2007 version of the SKIL Bill contains favorable language.
immi_2006
08-07 10:32 AM
You need to realize that 485 is a separate application when you file for yourself or your wife. So all the documents mentioned in 485 imply to your wife application too. Few changes need to be taken care
1.If 140 is pending or approved in texas your wife application should go to texas
2. If 140 pending attached the labor approved copy.
3. Employment copy instead of original.
Hope this helps
1.If 140 is pending or approved in texas your wife application should go to texas
2. If 140 pending attached the labor approved copy.
3. Employment copy instead of original.
Hope this helps
2011 animal print wallpaper for
GC_1000Watt
01-23 12:07 AM
Hi,
My H1B extension got denied, I have n't got the denial notice yet. Can someone please advice what options do i have with out going out of status? and how long i can stay in this country?. My current I94 expired in sept 2009.
Please advice.
My situation was same. Upon getting denial notice me and my employer talked to Murthy and on there suggestion we filed a fresh extension petition with all documents. We filed under premium processing and I got approved H1B with I-94 in 10 days.
I suggest you to consult with a highly recognized immigration lawyer and based on your denial reasons act accordingly.
You can also appeal against denial, but then you can't work and there is no premium processing in appeal. You might have to wait for many a days.
Consulting with a lawyer will help you my friend. Good luck.
My H1B extension got denied, I have n't got the denial notice yet. Can someone please advice what options do i have with out going out of status? and how long i can stay in this country?. My current I94 expired in sept 2009.
Please advice.
My situation was same. Upon getting denial notice me and my employer talked to Murthy and on there suggestion we filed a fresh extension petition with all documents. We filed under premium processing and I got approved H1B with I-94 in 10 days.
I suggest you to consult with a highly recognized immigration lawyer and based on your denial reasons act accordingly.
You can also appeal against denial, but then you can't work and there is no premium processing in appeal. You might have to wait for many a days.
Consulting with a lawyer will help you my friend. Good luck.
more...
pitha
05-14 11:35 PM
It is going to go back that is 100% gaurenteed, when that is the question. I have a pd of august 2005 eb2 will I make it before it retrogresses :confused:
This is totally ludacris to me. Even though the bulletin expects movement going forward, there is no assurance that the dates will not go back. On the flip side, I am wondering if USCIS/DOS wanted to fully utilize the 140K visas this year and just moved the dates too much ahead. If thats the case, the dates might not move again or retrogress back further. DOS official Oppenheimer mentioned that atleast 10-11k were wasted last year. I still feel that the dates are going to go back some time sooner or later without congressional law changes.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
This is totally ludacris to me. Even though the bulletin expects movement going forward, there is no assurance that the dates will not go back. On the flip side, I am wondering if USCIS/DOS wanted to fully utilize the 140K visas this year and just moved the dates too much ahead. If thats the case, the dates might not move again or retrogress back further. DOS official Oppenheimer mentioned that atleast 10-11k were wasted last year. I still feel that the dates are going to go back some time sooner or later without congressional law changes.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
rolrblade
03-18 08:14 AM
Hi,
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
Answers below:
1. Technically there is no Salary restriction. As stated above it is a grey area. But, if the job duties are the same and the salary difference is too big (no one knows how much is acceptable without raising questions), then it brings into question if you are still performing the same duties. But basically, you have to make equal to or more than the LC.
2. I have used AC21 before. Have not done EAD renewal yet.
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
Answers below:
1. Technically there is no Salary restriction. As stated above it is a grey area. But, if the job duties are the same and the salary difference is too big (no one knows how much is acceptable without raising questions), then it brings into question if you are still performing the same duties. But basically, you have to make equal to or more than the LC.
2. I have used AC21 before. Have not done EAD renewal yet.
more...
Danko
11-26 06:03 AM
I was just too sentimental about the site where I learned my first Flash steps. :cry3:
I think it's natural to switch from Flash Studio to Flex Builder in the some point of time.
Never mind...
less designer focused and more for developers
I didn't quite understand this, since Silverlight and Flex are equally developer focused (Silverlight is at least "inspired" by Flex).
I think it's natural to switch from Flash Studio to Flex Builder in the some point of time.
Never mind...
less designer focused and more for developers
I didn't quite understand this, since Silverlight and Flex are equally developer focused (Silverlight is at least "inspired" by Flex).
2010 animal print wallpaper for
ilikekilo
07-17 04:24 PM
opening new threads like this is annoying, I see lots of useless thread around here which discourages me to come to IV that often. He is asking update from CORE like they owe him, he must have paid his attorney and should attorney in such way not here. Whenever core has something to share they do share, no doubts.
i agree with you......dont demand..where have u been all these days coming today and asking IV for updated as they owe you...ofcourse bearing the fruits is not the only thing one can do they can contribute as well...will those new poeple who jpined in july will be willing to contribute to IV for fighting for our cuase GIBVE ME A BREAK
i agree with you......dont demand..where have u been all these days coming today and asking IV for updated as they owe you...ofcourse bearing the fruits is not the only thing one can do they can contribute as well...will those new poeple who jpined in july will be willing to contribute to IV for fighting for our cuase GIBVE ME A BREAK
more...
wildcat1313
03-30 04:53 PM
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
hair animal print wallpaper for
kirupa
03-31 01:56 PM
I e-mailed my colleague (http://blog.sunnypixels.com/) who worked on this, and she suggested checking the PDF compatibility button before exporting. Does your file have that option?
Thanks,
Kirupa :)
Thanks,
Kirupa :)
more...
pd_recapturing
08-22 05:07 PM
I sent u another PM, pls respond whenever u get a chance.
hot animal print wallpaper for
pbojja
04-20 02:22 PM
I-94 also does not have the date written
Just take the passports and required documents to Chicago Airport , there will be a Customs and Border office inside the International terminal, they will be able to fix it .
Just take the passports and required documents to Chicago Airport , there will be a Customs and Border office inside the International terminal, they will be able to fix it .
more...
house Animal Print Wallpaper For Home. Flashing Leopard Print iPhone
amitga
06-24 11:41 AM
Rupert Murdoch, Mayor Bloomberg Lobby For Immigration Reform, Path To 'Legal Status' For Illegal Immigrants (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/rupert-murdoch-mayor-bloo_n_623805.html)
tattoo animal print wallpaper for
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
more...
pictures animal print wallpaper for home. animal print wallpaper.
ski_dude12
08-12 03:30 PM
The response I received from my congresswoman was that my case has been requested for review and to get back in 30-60 days. Also, that my name check/fingerprints were complete.
dresses animal print wallpaper for
Becks
08-16 05:51 PM
I had my PA DL renewed last year. All they asked was the original I-485 receipt, Passport. They dont consider EADs.
more...
makeup animal print wallpaper for
FrankZulu
08-12 04:26 PM
As my priority date is current I contacted my local congressman's office for help with my I-485. NSC replied back to the office (see reply below) saying my background checks are still on. But the officer at the infopass appointment said my backgrounds checks are complete. I don't know whom to believe.
Is this some kind of standard reply that USCIS is giving for Congressman's or Senators case status inquiry?
Good morning XXXXXXXXXXX,
Re: I-485s <Applicant Name>
I have conversed with those in charge of these cases.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
committed to adjudicating immigration benefits in a timely, efficient
manner that ensures public safety and national security.
Toward that end, USCIS requires extensive background checks for every
application or petition it adjudicates. While background checks for
most applications or petitions are completed quickly, a small percentage
of cases involve unresolved background check issues that result in
adjudication delays.
Background checks involve more than just the initial submission of and
response related to biographical information and fingerprints. When
checks and/or a review of an administrative record reveal an issue
potentially impacting an applicant's eligibility for the requested
immigration benefit, further inquiry is needed. The inquiry may include
an additional interview and/or the need to contact another agency for
updates or more comprehensive information. If it is determined that an
outside agency possesses relevant information about a case, USCIS
requests such information for review. Upon gathering and assessing all
available information, USCIS then adjudicates the application as
expeditiously as possible.
We have checked into your constituent's case and have been assured that
the agency is aware of your inquiry, and is monitoring progress related
to it. However, unresolved issues in your constituent's case require
thorough review before a decision can be rendered. Unfortunately, we
cannot speculate as to when this review process will be completed.
We realize that your constituent may feel frustrated by delays related
to his or her case. As an agency, we must weigh individual
inconvenience against the broader concerns of public safety and national
security.
We hope this information and assurance are helpful. If we may be of
assistance in the future, please let us know.
I hope this information is helpful to you. At this time I am closing the
inquiry on this matter.
Thank you,
<Officer Name>
Immigration Services Officer
NSC Congressional Unit
I have tried multiple sources and following is the response:
* SR (july 19th): No response Yet
* IO Inquiry (2nd Level, multiple times): You are pre-adjudicated. Officer will review/in review.
* Congressmen: I am in the queue to be processed (File will be picked through electronic sweep :confused:).
* Senator: Background check being conducted. (No written response yet, just was updated on phone by the senators office).
* InfoPass (3 months back): Your application is pre-adju. and will be approved once visa is available.
To all who have experienced something similar, how can I confirm if my application is really going through background check??? Or should I give it more time?
Is this some kind of standard reply that USCIS is giving for Congressman's or Senators case status inquiry?
Good morning XXXXXXXXXXX,
Re: I-485s <Applicant Name>
I have conversed with those in charge of these cases.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
committed to adjudicating immigration benefits in a timely, efficient
manner that ensures public safety and national security.
Toward that end, USCIS requires extensive background checks for every
application or petition it adjudicates. While background checks for
most applications or petitions are completed quickly, a small percentage
of cases involve unresolved background check issues that result in
adjudication delays.
Background checks involve more than just the initial submission of and
response related to biographical information and fingerprints. When
checks and/or a review of an administrative record reveal an issue
potentially impacting an applicant's eligibility for the requested
immigration benefit, further inquiry is needed. The inquiry may include
an additional interview and/or the need to contact another agency for
updates or more comprehensive information. If it is determined that an
outside agency possesses relevant information about a case, USCIS
requests such information for review. Upon gathering and assessing all
available information, USCIS then adjudicates the application as
expeditiously as possible.
We have checked into your constituent's case and have been assured that
the agency is aware of your inquiry, and is monitoring progress related
to it. However, unresolved issues in your constituent's case require
thorough review before a decision can be rendered. Unfortunately, we
cannot speculate as to when this review process will be completed.
We realize that your constituent may feel frustrated by delays related
to his or her case. As an agency, we must weigh individual
inconvenience against the broader concerns of public safety and national
security.
We hope this information and assurance are helpful. If we may be of
assistance in the future, please let us know.
I hope this information is helpful to you. At this time I am closing the
inquiry on this matter.
Thank you,
<Officer Name>
Immigration Services Officer
NSC Congressional Unit
I have tried multiple sources and following is the response:
* SR (july 19th): No response Yet
* IO Inquiry (2nd Level, multiple times): You are pre-adjudicated. Officer will review/in review.
* Congressmen: I am in the queue to be processed (File will be picked through electronic sweep :confused:).
* Senator: Background check being conducted. (No written response yet, just was updated on phone by the senators office).
* InfoPass (3 months back): Your application is pre-adju. and will be approved once visa is available.
To all who have experienced something similar, how can I confirm if my application is really going through background check??? Or should I give it more time?
girlfriend toile de jouy home decorating
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-11 02:23 PM
bump
hairstyles 2011 animal print wallpaper
arrarrgee
07-13 11:29 AM
Read on CNN that west coast is hitting 125 in some places...if thats the case guess you guys should be good not wearing any suits...would look odd:eek:
Its a good idea but make sure you guyz are comfortable. It must be hot out there.
Its a good idea but make sure you guyz are comfortable. It must be hot out there.
srikanthmavurapu
08-16 03:00 PM
You have a valid H1 with the new employer (client), so there should be nothing wrong working with the client.
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
There is not direct signed contract with the client and old employer. There are like 3 layers inbetween client and the old employer. old employer have contract with the middle vendor not the client.
But, one problem is this old employer made me sign the Employee Agreement document when i was going for my visa stamping. He is using that Agreement and using it against me. And also in the offer letter which he gave me he said he will revise or increase my pay every 6 months but never did that and he didn't gave any medical benifits also.
Thanks,
Srikanth
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
There is not direct signed contract with the client and old employer. There are like 3 layers inbetween client and the old employer. old employer have contract with the middle vendor not the client.
But, one problem is this old employer made me sign the Employee Agreement document when i was going for my visa stamping. He is using that Agreement and using it against me. And also in the offer letter which he gave me he said he will revise or increase my pay every 6 months but never did that and he didn't gave any medical benifits also.
Thanks,
Srikanth
GC08
02-04 05:02 PM
I don't think Americans are that short sighted or narrow minded to want to steal your social security money. I know, i read a lot of press releases on how their social security is in a mess. They will fix it. I have no doubt about it.
Who thought India would be in such a limelight and then go on to be economic power before year 2000?
In a short span of 6-7 years the whole world changed. Coming to social security, by the time you will be in need of Social security, it will be decades and that is lot of time for a change. Who knows, we may be even taking a flight to Mars or worse 'nuked'.
Just be positive and drink a high gravity beer.
How do you know that they are not? Look at all the deficits, the American government is going to bankcrupcy if nothing is done. I recently read some article talking about American professors/researchers went to other places, like Austalia, for jobs because their research funding was cut.
Americans are very "near-sighted", to some extent. For issues like legal immigrants, they do not need to be far-sighted and worst, to think about you cause you are just one of the persons in the labor pool for American companies to use. Sometime ago, I heard on NPR talking about those Mexican migrant workers. Basically, Americans brought them to America during the time of labor shortage and kicked them out like trash during tough times.
That's always the case.. You are here for Americans to use ... wether you are farmers or professionals. My supervisors once even said that new comers had always been at the bottom of America.
Being positive is one thing, being realistic is another. :cool:
Who thought India would be in such a limelight and then go on to be economic power before year 2000?
In a short span of 6-7 years the whole world changed. Coming to social security, by the time you will be in need of Social security, it will be decades and that is lot of time for a change. Who knows, we may be even taking a flight to Mars or worse 'nuked'.
Just be positive and drink a high gravity beer.
How do you know that they are not? Look at all the deficits, the American government is going to bankcrupcy if nothing is done. I recently read some article talking about American professors/researchers went to other places, like Austalia, for jobs because their research funding was cut.
Americans are very "near-sighted", to some extent. For issues like legal immigrants, they do not need to be far-sighted and worst, to think about you cause you are just one of the persons in the labor pool for American companies to use. Sometime ago, I heard on NPR talking about those Mexican migrant workers. Basically, Americans brought them to America during the time of labor shortage and kicked them out like trash during tough times.
That's always the case.. You are here for Americans to use ... wether you are farmers or professionals. My supervisors once even said that new comers had always been at the bottom of America.
Being positive is one thing, being realistic is another. :cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment