ajay
02-10 10:14 AM
US experience won't count much unless you are from fortune 500 company. These days anyone even with Aptech certificate can get a chance to come and work in USA on L visa for short assignments. So if your experience is in a desi consulting firm, I do not think your resume will be attractive.
The figures shown are all looking good for experienced people in good companies. But it is not easy to get jobs as senior people in top companies. Also remember you have to work much more than you work here. You also have to work on Saturdays in a lot of companies. If your clients are in USA you may also need work in the night too to interact with your people in USA. Also remember in small companies you rarely get to do cutting edge world class work or new idea or planning. You will hardly learn or get special trainings.
Grass is always green on the other side
I was reading this thread and found something that I haven't found here also. In US also I haven't found any companies give much exposure to consultants for world class work or new idea or planning. I also haven't found any companies that provide special training to the consultants.
Fortune 500 companies may be an exception though from the above.
What I feel is it all depends on the individual how much of exposure one can get regardless where s/he is working. Technology is seamless and it is available from anywhere.
The figures shown are all looking good for experienced people in good companies. But it is not easy to get jobs as senior people in top companies. Also remember you have to work much more than you work here. You also have to work on Saturdays in a lot of companies. If your clients are in USA you may also need work in the night too to interact with your people in USA. Also remember in small companies you rarely get to do cutting edge world class work or new idea or planning. You will hardly learn or get special trainings.
Grass is always green on the other side
I was reading this thread and found something that I haven't found here also. In US also I haven't found any companies give much exposure to consultants for world class work or new idea or planning. I also haven't found any companies that provide special training to the consultants.
Fortune 500 companies may be an exception though from the above.
What I feel is it all depends on the individual how much of exposure one can get regardless where s/he is working. Technology is seamless and it is available from anywhere.
wallpaper Taismo. Taismo. Tags:
chi_shark
09-09 03:45 PM
This issue must have been beaten to death already... I do not think that you have to be a permanent resident or Citizen in USCIS terms for doing S-Corp. The requirement is stated in a negative fashion in the code. I mean that the code lists what cannot be instead of what should be. And I think it means that a s-corp shareholder cannot be a non-resident alien. Thats it. I am on EAD and I have an S-Corp (i dont do IT with that company). I have a full time IT job and run the company part time...
I would have liked to do LLC except that it is more expensive to set it up compared to corp. there are record keeping requirements on corp... but if you are a good CEO, you will keep records for any company... no matter what legal style of organization.
The only operational benefit of S-corp or llc is the pass through taxation... i.e. income is taxed only once... c-corp has to be taxed on profits... on the flip side, however, you may potentially have a company that does very little business in the first year and hence very little profits or taxes... you could give yourself a handsome (but reasonable) salary and hence declare loss or zero profits... there are ways..
finally, I recommend spending the extra time, money, effort to read a few books (like "Inc yourself") and subscribe to inc magazine, entrepreneur magazine to do all legal and accounting stuff yourself in the first 1 2 years... you will learn a lot! on the other hand if you are starting with large capital base, then you can probably hire everyone right off the bat! (you probably would not have come here if you had plenty of money to hire everyone)
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
I would have liked to do LLC except that it is more expensive to set it up compared to corp. there are record keeping requirements on corp... but if you are a good CEO, you will keep records for any company... no matter what legal style of organization.
The only operational benefit of S-corp or llc is the pass through taxation... i.e. income is taxed only once... c-corp has to be taxed on profits... on the flip side, however, you may potentially have a company that does very little business in the first year and hence very little profits or taxes... you could give yourself a handsome (but reasonable) salary and hence declare loss or zero profits... there are ways..
finally, I recommend spending the extra time, money, effort to read a few books (like "Inc yourself") and subscribe to inc magazine, entrepreneur magazine to do all legal and accounting stuff yourself in the first 1 2 years... you will learn a lot! on the other hand if you are starting with large capital base, then you can probably hire everyone right off the bat! (you probably would not have come here if you had plenty of money to hire everyone)
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
gcisadawg
04-12 12:14 AM
There is bigger problem than H1 approval i.e. overstaying. If overstay more then six months you will barred for 3 years. So go out as soon as possible and come back with another H1
Since his denial was on March 31st, would the overstay clock starts from March 31st or from original I-94 expiry date? My understanding was that one can work legally using H1B receipt notice. Hence, OP was legal atleast till March 31st, 2009, correct?
-GCisaDawg
Since his denial was on March 31st, would the overstay clock starts from March 31st or from original I-94 expiry date? My understanding was that one can work legally using H1B receipt notice. Hence, OP was legal atleast till March 31st, 2009, correct?
-GCisaDawg
2011 Various Cross Fox Tails
sroyc
12-11 04:24 AM
From what I understand, the annual quota is 140K. The extra 23K was the spillover from last year's FB quota and was distributed in the following order - EB1->EB2->EB3.
Perhaps unfairly, they do not have the same quotas for the spillover visas.
Does anybody know why EB3 Total number (45,650) doesn't translate into 28% of annual quota (163,037). Does it mean EB3 didn't get their fair share (forget about per country limit)? This is insane.
Perhaps unfairly, they do not have the same quotas for the spillover visas.
Does anybody know why EB3 Total number (45,650) doesn't translate into 28% of annual quota (163,037). Does it mean EB3 didn't get their fair share (forget about per country limit)? This is insane.
more...
samshah
07-14 09:34 PM
We are in Houston and are interested to join.
gconmymind
09-29 02:06 PM
My wife had her 485 FP on Friday. We had filed her 485 last month, mine was filed last July. Both our 485s have soft LUD on 9/26, 9/27 and 9/29. No status update. Should I read anything into it??
more...
kaisersose
06-02 04:05 PM
can i get a h1 done from a desi employer just to protect the h4 status and join the other company thats offering me a job with my ead.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
For you or for her? Getting a H is not easy (you will have to wait till Oct 2009) and maintaining a H without paystubs is not legal either. Should be far more easier & quicker for her to get a F visa.
In general, avoid getting into risk situations that you cannot get out of. In the long run, being safe with immigration matters and resisting the temptation to make a few extra bucks will be more beneficial.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
For you or for her? Getting a H is not easy (you will have to wait till Oct 2009) and maintaining a H without paystubs is not legal either. Should be far more easier & quicker for her to get a F visa.
In general, avoid getting into risk situations that you cannot get out of. In the long run, being safe with immigration matters and resisting the temptation to make a few extra bucks will be more beneficial.
2010 Wolf Tails- Unleashed Fox by
ilikekilo
07-17 02:02 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
given that u have just joined the group, let me say welcome aboard...
u made a wise decision to join this effort.. however regretfully I beg to defer , for you to be too quick to ask questions or updates and be more patient..
please aks yourself..what did u do for IV....what can u expect...
if u are a very active member and did contribute to IV, please accept my apologies
given that u have just joined the group, let me say welcome aboard...
u made a wise decision to join this effort.. however regretfully I beg to defer , for you to be too quick to ask questions or updates and be more patient..
please aks yourself..what did u do for IV....what can u expect...
if u are a very active member and did contribute to IV, please accept my apologies
more...
ArunAntonio
11-22 11:59 AM
I have just emailed CBS and highlighted the plight of the likes of us. I also made it a point to differnetiate the H1b issue and our issue.
On another note I wanted to mention that .. We have to take active part in this struggle .. it is out struggle and we need to be at the fore front.... all we are asking for is ..........*FREEDOM*
On another note I wanted to mention that .. We have to take active part in this struggle .. it is out struggle and we need to be at the fore front.... all we are asking for is ..........*FREEDOM*
hair nine tailed fox
DallasBlue
07-18 09:24 PM
Can I expect Conference call this Sunday (07/21) ? Please provide me the Phone number / Any password-Pin/ ANd time for the conference call.
yes. 7/22 @ 11am cst
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
yes. 7/22 @ 11am cst
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
more...
Kevin Sadler
October 23rd, 2005, 02:55 AM
Hi Michael, nice shots. It's easy to see that you brought the discipline and hard work of your nature work to the studio. What was your lighting setup? Flash? strobes? How many and what positions? and how did you go about metering? They're very beautiful but just a little flat. Shadows add depth and will make the flowers pop out more. How's that for a vague concept? :) But if you have the ability to reposition the light(s) you should get some very different and interesting results. adjust to taste. shadows are good in many situations. Again, nice work. later, kevin
hot The Nine-Tailed fox demon
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
more...
house nine tailed fox.
nda050325
07-16 06:22 PM
Sangeetha
This seems to be a new requirement specificed by the consulate.
I havent seen any prespecified format of this letter. But it should contain as much information as possible about your past employment. Some key points would be
Name
Title:
DOJ:
Skillset
Primary duties handled (be as descriptive as possible).
HR Contact Info:
You may want to modify the following template to your skillset:
This letter serves to confirm that Mr. First Name Last name was employed full time in Company name from MM_DD_YYYY to MM_DD_YYYY, in the capacity of OFFICIAL DESIGNATION.
His roles included MENTION ATLEAST 5 BULLET POINTS.
His skill sets included MENTION ALL YOUR SKILLS
He has successfully completed the TRAININGS DONE, and is a Certified GIVE DETAILS.,
Please let us know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
HUMAN RESOURCES
===
This seems to be a new requirement specificed by the consulate.
I havent seen any prespecified format of this letter. But it should contain as much information as possible about your past employment. Some key points would be
Name
Title:
DOJ:
Skillset
Primary duties handled (be as descriptive as possible).
HR Contact Info:
You may want to modify the following template to your skillset:
This letter serves to confirm that Mr. First Name Last name was employed full time in Company name from MM_DD_YYYY to MM_DD_YYYY, in the capacity of OFFICIAL DESIGNATION.
His roles included MENTION ATLEAST 5 BULLET POINTS.
His skill sets included MENTION ALL YOUR SKILLS
He has successfully completed the TRAININGS DONE, and is a Certified GIVE DETAILS.,
Please let us know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
HUMAN RESOURCES
===
tattoo +and+nine+tailed+fox+pics
jonty_11
01-31 01:49 PM
I think we need to help ourselves, please contribute to IV and help yourselves.
more...
pictures Naruto and 9 tails Fox Demon
knnmbd
07-14 08:41 AM
Not trying to sound pessimistic� but I am tired of hearing about the so called SKIL bill without any sort of timeline attached to it. For all I care it seems to me that it might just lay dormant in the house for one, two or even five years without any consideration. Any one with more info should please throw more light.
With so much of steam building up around the SKIL bill, does the IV core team have any time line on when this will even be debated in the House? Is this on the plate for before or after the November elections?
With so much of steam building up around the SKIL bill, does the IV core team have any time line on when this will even be debated in the House? Is this on the plate for before or after the November elections?
dresses Naruto 9 Tailed Fox
gen_tp
09-02 12:48 AM
Immigration Voice:
NSC:
cokeraj Jun 2004
sjagadeesan Jun 2004
nni123 Aug 2004
Nashim (co-worker) Nov 2004
aachoo Dec 2004
kurtz_wolfgang Dec 2004
TSC:
ganesha Apr 2004
NolaIndian32 04.30.2004
inskrish May 2004
Tortoise May 2004
GCWhru (dependent) Sep 2004
lotus26 (dependent) Sep 2004
adriansquare (NIW) Oct 2004
GCNirvana Dec 2004
mpek Dec 2004
Service Center Unknown:
arav_m Dec 2004
NSC:
hope1234 04.05.2004
ms665 04.07.2004
Wantgc191 04.14.2009
mitulpatel 04.15.2004
whenever 06.10.2004
srsga 06.30.2004
nandyap 10.18.2004
priderock 10.27.2004
TSC:
ItsGCTime 03.16.2004
rghrdr777 04.01.2004
sreenip4 05.04.2004
EduKondalaVada 05.22.2004
curryimmigrant 07.17.2004
LongHuntforGC Aug 2004
rajesh144 08.08.2004
crazy4gc 08.18.2004
msb0 08.28.2004
mallu37 09.13.2004
simran (dependent) 10.03.2004
ksknov2004 (dependent) 11.01.2004
vurramass 12.11.2004
tinkerer 12.13.2004
awaitinggc 12.24.2004
vb2012 12.24.2004
surmut 12.28.2004
greenedtoday 01.05.2005
NSC:
cokeraj Jun 2004
sjagadeesan Jun 2004
nni123 Aug 2004
Nashim (co-worker) Nov 2004
aachoo Dec 2004
kurtz_wolfgang Dec 2004
TSC:
ganesha Apr 2004
NolaIndian32 04.30.2004
inskrish May 2004
Tortoise May 2004
GCWhru (dependent) Sep 2004
lotus26 (dependent) Sep 2004
adriansquare (NIW) Oct 2004
GCNirvana Dec 2004
mpek Dec 2004
Service Center Unknown:
arav_m Dec 2004
NSC:
hope1234 04.05.2004
ms665 04.07.2004
Wantgc191 04.14.2009
mitulpatel 04.15.2004
whenever 06.10.2004
srsga 06.30.2004
nandyap 10.18.2004
priderock 10.27.2004
TSC:
ItsGCTime 03.16.2004
rghrdr777 04.01.2004
sreenip4 05.04.2004
EduKondalaVada 05.22.2004
curryimmigrant 07.17.2004
LongHuntforGC Aug 2004
rajesh144 08.08.2004
crazy4gc 08.18.2004
msb0 08.28.2004
mallu37 09.13.2004
simran (dependent) 10.03.2004
ksknov2004 (dependent) 11.01.2004
vurramass 12.11.2004
tinkerer 12.13.2004
awaitinggc 12.24.2004
vb2012 12.24.2004
surmut 12.28.2004
greenedtoday 01.05.2005
more...
makeup Free nine tails fox
indianabacklog
03-19 01:16 PM
If it is true, how come the few person with old priority date (2002) is still waiting and some person with later priority date (2003,2004) got their GC..after Name check
RD is also not a reliable predictor since there are people who have been approved who applied for AOS in July 2007 while those who had applied prior to this are still waiting to see the light.
It is a random process for sure.
RD is also not a reliable predictor since there are people who have been approved who applied for AOS in July 2007 while those who had applied prior to this are still waiting to see the light.
It is a random process for sure.
girlfriend TEAM SONIC: Character
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 :)
hairstyles Naruto - Nine Tail Fox
.jpg "Naruto (nine tailed fox)")
eb3_nepa
04-27 06:12 PM
Not sure if this has been posted before. If not here goes. This is on immigration-law.com.
Does IV know anything about this?
04/25/2009: On-Going USCIS Efforts to Reduce Backlog in Employment-Based Immigration Applications<br><br>
Lately, I-140 and EB-485 applicants have been receiving envelopes from the Service Centers with their long-awaited approval notices, particularly those cases which were filed during and after the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco period. Along with the development, information has been released by the stake-holder agencies of the Department of State and the USCIS indicating that there has been efforts on the part of the USCIS to eliminate employment-based immigation backlogs. In releasing the May 2009 Visa Bulletin, the State Department confirmed that the USCIS had been taking out EB visa numbers en masse exhausting all the EB-3 visa numbers available for the rest of FY 2009. This report is consistent with the information released by the USCIS on its projected processing time to four months for the employment-based I-140 petitions and EB-485 applications by the end of FY 2009, which is September 30, 2009. The goal appears to have contributed to the exhaustion of annually allocated employment-based visa numbers so that no EB visa numbers be unused or wasted by the end of FY 2009. The commitment to this goal of the USCIS is reaffirmed by yesterday's release of Mr. Michael Ayte's report on the employment-based visa processing times in the Leadership Journal of the DHS. Considering a huge backlog and processing delays in the employment-based immigration petitions and 485 applications for almost two years as affected primarily by the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco, the recent event that evolved in the USCIS processing time change is certainly a welcome news for waiters who have suffered from the past backlogs.
<br><br>
What have tirbuted to this change? The long-term strategy for reduction of processing times for immigration benefits applications appears to be launch of "Transformation Program" that intended to achieve reduction of processing times by turning current paper-based application and processing system into complete electronization system and process focusing on the concept of digital "account" databases within approximately a period of five years. However, this program has experienced a snag. However, lately the DHS disclosed its multi-billion dollar contract with the IBM for two programs. One is to convert all the existing files and date into digitazition and the other is to develop and implement electronic application and processing system. Reportedly, for this purpose, the IBM reenforced its operation in India and the work is underway. However, report indicates that the first phase appears to focus on the digitazation of existing database rather than implementation of electronic application and processing system. Overall, the goal of the contract appears to be completed in the next five years. It thus appears that the current efforts of elimination of backlogs within this fiscal year do not rely on the progress of this program. The big momentum was created by the Congress appropriating fund for USCIS human resources. Thanks to the Congress action to give fund for hiring additional 2,000 resources, the USCIS recxruited and trained new hires who joined the USCIS field offices including Service Centers and local district and field offices, initially focusing on the job of elimination of huge naturalization applications. USCIS had been reporting that the hurdle for reduction of employment-based immigration cases was the mountain of naturalization applications that poured in around the time of FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Now, the naturalization application backlog is under control, inreased resources are becoming available for the employment-based immigration files. Another important factor that has contributed to the agency's recent move was the implementation name-check reduction agreement between the FBI and the DHS and the USCIS policy to complete adjudicaion of EB-485 applications when the FBI name check failed to complete within 180 days. The third factor that cannot be discounted nor minimized is the new DHS leadership's move and commitment for the elimination of the employment-based immigration case backlogs. As people may recall, the Secretary Napolitano of the DHS issued a directive to report the state of backlogs in the immigration benefit applications and the USCIS leaders plan for reduction or elimination of such backlogs. With all of the above developments combined, the employment-based immgrant community is continuously expected to witness the reduction of processing times, at least for a short term. However, long-term reduction or elimination of EB case processing backlog is likely to depend on success of the IBM contract digitization program of the USCIS. This needs continuing internal and external political support, and we hope that the Congress extends its strong support, particularly considering importance of the successful reengineering program to accomodate the potentially forthcoming avalanche and flood gate opening for case loads for the USCIS when the country passes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation.
Does IV know anything about this?
04/25/2009: On-Going USCIS Efforts to Reduce Backlog in Employment-Based Immigration Applications<br><br>
Lately, I-140 and EB-485 applicants have been receiving envelopes from the Service Centers with their long-awaited approval notices, particularly those cases which were filed during and after the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco period. Along with the development, information has been released by the stake-holder agencies of the Department of State and the USCIS indicating that there has been efforts on the part of the USCIS to eliminate employment-based immigation backlogs. In releasing the May 2009 Visa Bulletin, the State Department confirmed that the USCIS had been taking out EB visa numbers en masse exhausting all the EB-3 visa numbers available for the rest of FY 2009. This report is consistent with the information released by the USCIS on its projected processing time to four months for the employment-based I-140 petitions and EB-485 applications by the end of FY 2009, which is September 30, 2009. The goal appears to have contributed to the exhaustion of annually allocated employment-based visa numbers so that no EB visa numbers be unused or wasted by the end of FY 2009. The commitment to this goal of the USCIS is reaffirmed by yesterday's release of Mr. Michael Ayte's report on the employment-based visa processing times in the Leadership Journal of the DHS. Considering a huge backlog and processing delays in the employment-based immigration petitions and 485 applications for almost two years as affected primarily by the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco, the recent event that evolved in the USCIS processing time change is certainly a welcome news for waiters who have suffered from the past backlogs.
<br><br>
What have tirbuted to this change? The long-term strategy for reduction of processing times for immigration benefits applications appears to be launch of "Transformation Program" that intended to achieve reduction of processing times by turning current paper-based application and processing system into complete electronization system and process focusing on the concept of digital "account" databases within approximately a period of five years. However, this program has experienced a snag. However, lately the DHS disclosed its multi-billion dollar contract with the IBM for two programs. One is to convert all the existing files and date into digitazition and the other is to develop and implement electronic application and processing system. Reportedly, for this purpose, the IBM reenforced its operation in India and the work is underway. However, report indicates that the first phase appears to focus on the digitazation of existing database rather than implementation of electronic application and processing system. Overall, the goal of the contract appears to be completed in the next five years. It thus appears that the current efforts of elimination of backlogs within this fiscal year do not rely on the progress of this program. The big momentum was created by the Congress appropriating fund for USCIS human resources. Thanks to the Congress action to give fund for hiring additional 2,000 resources, the USCIS recxruited and trained new hires who joined the USCIS field offices including Service Centers and local district and field offices, initially focusing on the job of elimination of huge naturalization applications. USCIS had been reporting that the hurdle for reduction of employment-based immigration cases was the mountain of naturalization applications that poured in around the time of FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Now, the naturalization application backlog is under control, inreased resources are becoming available for the employment-based immigration files. Another important factor that has contributed to the agency's recent move was the implementation name-check reduction agreement between the FBI and the DHS and the USCIS policy to complete adjudicaion of EB-485 applications when the FBI name check failed to complete within 180 days. The third factor that cannot be discounted nor minimized is the new DHS leadership's move and commitment for the elimination of the employment-based immigration case backlogs. As people may recall, the Secretary Napolitano of the DHS issued a directive to report the state of backlogs in the immigration benefit applications and the USCIS leaders plan for reduction or elimination of such backlogs. With all of the above developments combined, the employment-based immgrant community is continuously expected to witness the reduction of processing times, at least for a short term. However, long-term reduction or elimination of EB case processing backlog is likely to depend on success of the IBM contract digitization program of the USCIS. This needs continuing internal and external political support, and we hope that the Congress extends its strong support, particularly considering importance of the successful reengineering program to accomodate the potentially forthcoming avalanche and flood gate opening for case loads for the USCIS when the country passes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation.
eager_immi
01-31 01:44 PM
aren't u contradicting urself?
Revoking the previously approved I140 doesn't invalidate the H1 extension/transfer. But to get further extensions/transfers, you need A) labor pending for one year OR B) approved I140 from the new employer.
Revoking the previously approved I140 doesn't invalidate the H1 extension/transfer. But to get further extensions/transfers, you need A) labor pending for one year OR B) approved I140 from the new employer.
Jeff Wheeler
11-30 01:11 AM
why would flash people move on to flex ? That makes no sense at all.
Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you think you do, but you really don't.
Is this directed at me?
Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you think you do, but you really don't.
Is this directed at me?
No comments:
Post a Comment