myvoice23
07-31 01:09 PM
Gurus,
I know most of you might be busy looking for the bill.
Please post your exp with infopass in Dallas TX
I had infopass appointment 2 days ago to enquiry about name check status. You stand on the line the security guy check your infopass appointment confirmation letter, and verifies the appointment time. if it is > 15 min. then he asks you to come 15 min. before. The receiptionist calls the next person in line. Takes the infopass appointment cfrm letter, and ask for what is the purpose of the appointment. Once she verifies it, If she gives you a token then you will go inside and talk to immigration officer.
I know most of you might be busy looking for the bill.
Please post your exp with infopass in Dallas TX
I had infopass appointment 2 days ago to enquiry about name check status. You stand on the line the security guy check your infopass appointment confirmation letter, and verifies the appointment time. if it is > 15 min. then he asks you to come 15 min. before. The receiptionist calls the next person in line. Takes the infopass appointment cfrm letter, and ask for what is the purpose of the appointment. Once she verifies it, If she gives you a token then you will go inside and talk to immigration officer.
wallpaper quotes about roses. quotes
maddipati1
07-30 07:18 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FinalFeeReminder30Jul07.pdf
They are just trying to justify both of their notifications,
1) Fee hike notification effective from today
2) July bulletin released on Jun13th
lets give them a break,
they are actually trying to straighten things out.
S
They are just trying to justify both of their notifications,
1) Fee hike notification effective from today
2) July bulletin released on Jun13th
lets give them a break,
they are actually trying to straighten things out.
S
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzcPZQFwe9b-nmub8fcQdEvx_g1PRSjQwBBSfYe-_tMBzGX7etNac1qn_VmBH-SmowgvpWBTD3a8rsYthONg-9JLhmWKMPP1NbOMdGQR__yk4DYHAHvIqRVi0hgMTlciHQtQEeuNhpLPM3/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzcPZQFwe9b-nmub8fcQdEvx_g1PRSjQwBBSfYe-_tMBzGX7etNac1qn_VmBH-SmowgvpWBTD3a8rsYthONg-9JLhmWKMPP1NbOMdGQR__yk4DYHAHvIqRVi0hgMTlciHQtQEeuNhpLPM3/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
2011 quotes about roses. Instant quotes and fast order
ata1234
07-13 09:04 PM
Done. Forwarded to other affected friends.
Wondering why IV has 4000 members while signatures are only 1327.
I believe your spouse can sign too because she is affected with this VB fiasco as well.
You are right! Hopefully, everybody is including their spouses too.
Wondering why IV has 4000 members while signatures are only 1327.
I believe your spouse can sign too because she is affected with this VB fiasco as well.
You are right! Hopefully, everybody is including their spouses too.
more...
psychman
11-11 07:00 PM
This is almost identical to the Modifying a Databound Collection case: http://www.kirupa.com/blend_wpf/modifying_databound_collection_pg1.htm
Thanks again Kirupa. I went back over the above post and it helped me answere some of the questions I had, but I do have one more if you don't mind. I have this little project almost wrapped up now. When complete the app will do the following:
-Imports Metadata.xml file generated by Deep Zoom Composer
-On import it will populate the databound image and text boxes with the original data
-On import it will also add four new "tag" elements to the original xml file
-The user will be able to navigate all of the original images and coresponding tags (your MIX08 presentation helped me create the navigation piece ((thanks!))
-The user can add new "tag" data to any of the old and new fields and the new data will overwrite the original xml file when the "save" button is clicked.
I have everything working great. Now I just need to figure out how to take my new "tag" elements and add them into all of the nodes on import. I know how to do this to one node, but I am not sure how to add the new elements to every "Image" node in the file. Here is the code I am using to make this work for the first node:
XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument();
doc.Load (variable pointing to xml file);
XmlDocumentFragment docFrag = doc.CreateDocumentFragment();
docFrag.InnerXml = "<testItem> test </testItem>";
doc.DocumentElement.FirstChild.NextSibling.AppendC hild(docFrag);
doc.Save("Metadata.xml");
Thanks again Kirupa. I went back over the above post and it helped me answere some of the questions I had, but I do have one more if you don't mind. I have this little project almost wrapped up now. When complete the app will do the following:
-Imports Metadata.xml file generated by Deep Zoom Composer
-On import it will populate the databound image and text boxes with the original data
-On import it will also add four new "tag" elements to the original xml file
-The user will be able to navigate all of the original images and coresponding tags (your MIX08 presentation helped me create the navigation piece ((thanks!))
-The user can add new "tag" data to any of the old and new fields and the new data will overwrite the original xml file when the "save" button is clicked.
I have everything working great. Now I just need to figure out how to take my new "tag" elements and add them into all of the nodes on import. I know how to do this to one node, but I am not sure how to add the new elements to every "Image" node in the file. Here is the code I am using to make this work for the first node:
XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument();
doc.Load (variable pointing to xml file);
XmlDocumentFragment docFrag = doc.CreateDocumentFragment();
docFrag.InnerXml = "<testItem> test </testItem>";
doc.DocumentElement.FirstChild.NextSibling.AppendC hild(docFrag);
doc.Save("Metadata.xml");
vxb2004
09-17 08:12 PM
If you call, make sure you talk to a level 2 representative.
more...
crazymish
03-06 12:33 AM
your wife is exempt from EAD/AP fees. If you apply online for her EAD or AP, the system will automatically figure that out and will not charge anything additional
Thx for the reply, one final question on the same lines per the reply above, if I were to file online, would the system ask her to go for fingerprinting again, i heard that if we were to apply paper based then we do not need to go again for a fingerprinting session. Please do share your thoughts here people.
Thx for the reply, one final question on the same lines per the reply above, if I were to file online, would the system ask her to go for fingerprinting again, i heard that if we were to apply paper based then we do not need to go again for a fingerprinting session. Please do share your thoughts here people.
2010 quotes about roses. quotes about roses. love poems
mbawa2574
02-21 01:30 PM
Hello I am on H1B visa, I am going to India, not to return to US, at least for 3 or 4 years. I wanted to know If my checking, savings account's in US Banks will be valid or not? If so until what period? When do my SSN will expire? I dont plant to open any new accounts, but I just want to keep my Bank accounts open, thats why. Please let me know.
:-)
:-)
more...
stones
07-01 08:04 AM
In my opinion, USCIS should grant Company C's H-1 petition though they may deny any extension request and thus company C's petition would only be valid through the 2011 date of Company A's petition. You will then have to travel out of the US to get an H-1 visa stamp before the 2011 date.
Do you think, I won't have problem even I do not have paystubs for October, 2008. I gave my OPT card, OPT I20 and latest pay stubs of Company B (until September 2008) and Company C (until June, 2009). Would they work? Please let me know. Thanks a lot for your advice.
Do you think, I won't have problem even I do not have paystubs for October, 2008. I gave my OPT card, OPT I20 and latest pay stubs of Company B (until September 2008) and Company C (until June, 2009). Would they work? Please let me know. Thanks a lot for your advice.
hair pictures of roses with quotes.
meridiani.planum
07-20 12:00 AM
Thanks for the response.
My Priority Date is:
March 16, 2001.
What can you guys tell me?
Thanks.
your case has probably been sent to a local office for an interview. You can take an Infopass appointment to learn more about your case:
http://infopass.uscis.gov/
Also, call the USCIS 1-800 number and enquire about your case and whether you can file a service request about it...
Its been ages since your 485 was filed! Do you have an attorney or was this case filed on your own?
My Priority Date is:
March 16, 2001.
What can you guys tell me?
Thanks.
your case has probably been sent to a local office for an interview. You can take an Infopass appointment to learn more about your case:
http://infopass.uscis.gov/
Also, call the USCIS 1-800 number and enquire about your case and whether you can file a service request about it...
Its been ages since your 485 was filed! Do you have an attorney or was this case filed on your own?
more...
prem_goel
08-16 07:03 PM
Don't worry Matt_Peru, if you have a fedex confirmation that USCIS has received it then you are good to go. USCIS these days is pushing the H-1b transfer/extension petitions to its extreme. Be prepared to expect a reply from USCIS only near to the 14th/15th day deadline for your petition. It'll take them approximately 2 weeks just to acknowledge your petition, and then your 15 day premium processing timeline will begin. Further, they might issue you a RFE on the 14th day after that. When you reply to the RFE petition, they'll give you a decision only after 14 days or so, not before that.
Gone are the days when PP H1b petitions used to be processed accurately in a weeks' time. Now even though you'll send the petition by overnight fedex, its upto USCIS's discretion to acknowledge whenever they'd like, and then the premium processing timeline will start.
I don't mean to discourage you here, but just to let you know of the ground realities as I recently faced with my own PP petition. People using regular processing are even more poorer with the total processing timeframe(including RFE) nearing about 4-5 months. In your case, if you were to get an RFE it'll be 3 months or so, if you don't it'll be about a month or so.
Gone are the days when PP H1b petitions used to be processed accurately in a weeks' time. Now even though you'll send the petition by overnight fedex, its upto USCIS's discretion to acknowledge whenever they'd like, and then the premium processing timeline will start.
I don't mean to discourage you here, but just to let you know of the ground realities as I recently faced with my own PP petition. People using regular processing are even more poorer with the total processing timeframe(including RFE) nearing about 4-5 months. In your case, if you were to get an RFE it'll be 3 months or so, if you don't it'll be about a month or so.
hot Heart Images With Love Quotes
ilikekilo
02-07 09:15 AM
I dont know of any insurance companies that cover pre-existing conditions..the older one is more the more expensive insurance is and not to mention pre existing conditions and all toehr terms and conditions jargon........ so be very careful... and good luck with your situation...
more...
house Share Graphic - Roses Quotes
jscris
July 18th, 2004, 10:43 AM
Nice! I think I like the second better, too.
tattoo The Rose (with Rose Quotes
dixie
01-25 11:33 AM
I was responding to this statement :
"If the govt can lobby for nuke bill, why they cannot do it for techs?" This is a nonsense topic anyways .. deserves to be closed.
How nuke bill is related to SKIL bill......
Admin close this forum.
"If the govt can lobby for nuke bill, why they cannot do it for techs?" This is a nonsense topic anyways .. deserves to be closed.
How nuke bill is related to SKIL bill......
Admin close this forum.
more...
pictures Quotes
suny_saini
07-23 01:40 AM
FROMNAIJA
Thanks alot for the information.
Thanks alot for the information.
dresses Rose Day Quotes Pictures
engineer
07-16 12:47 PM
Sorry Friends...I am new here and don't know how to deal with this.
I filed both I-140 and I485 in Sept 2005.
Thanks
which no you called ? and what information they asked you to provide status ? regular stuff like PD, Name etc ?
I filed both I-140 and I485 in Sept 2005.
Thanks
which no you called ? and what information they asked you to provide status ? regular stuff like PD, Name etc ?
more...
makeup Quotes And Roses
vsattri
07-14 12:12 PM
Question is when was the application posted. 11 th july seems to be the date they processed the application. Not necessarily the recpt date.
girlfriend Romantic Rose Quote By
jonty_11
07-17 06:08 PM
not as long as I see it on USCIS website..
Thisis Murthy website...
Thisis Murthy website...
hairstyles Recently, the paper rose maker
485Mbe4001
02-10 05:11 PM
how can they approve 485's by 2010 if there are very limited visas available. Getting EAD or AP is not the end of the road. Final freedom is when you get the GC and that is not possible if unless we all lobby to change the law....I hope people understand that we are in for a very long wait if there is not change in the law, quota..
USCIS can simply say that they have eliminated backlogs by processing all applications.This does not IMPLY that all 2007 filers will have green cards in their hands.. Please understand thay my reply is not directed to you, instead it is in response to all the people i meet who expect to have GCs by 2010...its simply not possible with status quo.
Many point to track it and say that 485s are being approved out of turn. Please understand that this to is a load of crap, either some people are exteremly lucky or USCIS screwed up a small number of cases..the rest of us are in the same slow sinking boat to nowhere.
Take a look at this link. As per this, 2010 is the timeline promised by USCIS to clear all backlogs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_go_pr_wh/immigration_backlogs
USCIS can simply say that they have eliminated backlogs by processing all applications.This does not IMPLY that all 2007 filers will have green cards in their hands.. Please understand thay my reply is not directed to you, instead it is in response to all the people i meet who expect to have GCs by 2010...its simply not possible with status quo.
Many point to track it and say that 485s are being approved out of turn. Please understand that this to is a load of crap, either some people are exteremly lucky or USCIS screwed up a small number of cases..the rest of us are in the same slow sinking boat to nowhere.
Take a look at this link. As per this, 2010 is the timeline promised by USCIS to clear all backlogs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_go_pr_wh/immigration_backlogs
lostinbeta
09-10 02:30 AM
Actually it is 3 seperate images all of which are .png images with transparency, all which use A/S. You are right though, they are small images and it is a small flash movie. I guess with something bigger it wouldn't be a good idea.
Thanks for the info david. Much appreciated:)
Thanks for the info david. Much appreciated:)
calgirl
08-12 06:19 PM
Were these approved at NSC or TSC?
Both are following this rule would be encouraging..
Source:
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/172162219/
Posted by willcrack (74) 1 hour 51 minutes ago
OK...now guys, strictly speaking the memo does not say anything about "conditional" GC...in legal speak. Just that they could revoke it if the person is considered inadmissable after the Name Check results come back. "Conditional GC" per se has the support of the actual statute only for Married to citizen, EB5 investment GC's etc.
And now for those who feel that USCIS is not approving cases whose NC's are pending, I know 2 of my friends and I whose NC's were pending when the file was with the officer (and approved in a week) and in my case NC was pending even at 6:30pm eastern (when I called the second level IIO at the NCSC) the day before I got the CPO e-mail (next day at 9am).
I have also seen several cases where people have called/went to Infopass after they got the GC to find out whether the NC was cleared....and it was pending !
so this should throw away all apprehensions about the 180+ rule not being implemented out of the window...
Both are following this rule would be encouraging..
Source:
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/172162219/
Posted by willcrack (74) 1 hour 51 minutes ago
OK...now guys, strictly speaking the memo does not say anything about "conditional" GC...in legal speak. Just that they could revoke it if the person is considered inadmissable after the Name Check results come back. "Conditional GC" per se has the support of the actual statute only for Married to citizen, EB5 investment GC's etc.
And now for those who feel that USCIS is not approving cases whose NC's are pending, I know 2 of my friends and I whose NC's were pending when the file was with the officer (and approved in a week) and in my case NC was pending even at 6:30pm eastern (when I called the second level IIO at the NCSC) the day before I got the CPO e-mail (next day at 9am).
I have also seen several cases where people have called/went to Infopass after they got the GC to find out whether the NC was cleared....and it was pending !
so this should throw away all apprehensions about the 180+ rule not being implemented out of the window...
No comments:
Post a Comment