prince7
09-30 02:56 PM
Hi Smartboy75 & Wawa, I also received the same update on Sep 28th ,I am in pending h1b transfer and uscis tried to reopen my previous approved h1b .
I am June filer and got all the receipts. Please keep me posted as well.
Appreciate your inputs.
I am June filer and got all the receipts. Please keep me posted as well.
Appreciate your inputs.
wallpaper Nadia Fares Picture
gsc999
06-07 03:43 PM
Hardwork of immigrants is the bedrock of American society. If seen in that light it makes perfect sense. "We deserve," this thought also ties into the Pygmalion theory. That is the American way. This is not a collective but an individualistic society, unless you showcase your achievments they won't be fully acknowledged. Unless you show that you deserve nobody is going to give it to you.
On another note, I give my example, I changed my job last year and relocated. I don't work for a consultant either. My earlier priority date was Sept. 2002 but I was willing to make a move and not be held hostage to retrogression. I knew it would be tough and many of my friends on H1-B thought it was a bad decision. Atleast, now I won't regret not making a decision. This maybe an isolated example but my old employer hired two American workers to replace me. Maybe its because we work harder or maybe because its both, smarter and harder. As JFK said,"We want to go to the Moon not because it is eazy but because it is hard." We deserve as much as born citizens if not more based on our contribution to this great nation of immigrants.
On another note, I give my example, I changed my job last year and relocated. I don't work for a consultant either. My earlier priority date was Sept. 2002 but I was willing to make a move and not be held hostage to retrogression. I knew it would be tough and many of my friends on H1-B thought it was a bad decision. Atleast, now I won't regret not making a decision. This maybe an isolated example but my old employer hired two American workers to replace me. Maybe its because we work harder or maybe because its both, smarter and harder. As JFK said,"We want to go to the Moon not because it is eazy but because it is hard." We deserve as much as born citizens if not more based on our contribution to this great nation of immigrants.
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
2011 Nadia Fares middot; « Back
BharatPremi
12-13 10:06 PM
Information we want to publicize, and information that we should keep restricted to members.
jazz
That is already happening in state chapters. In my opinion IV still has a need to remain "grass root" organization. And as long as that is needed, "Recurring Contribution" would be more attractive tool. Once we set "Paid membership" concept it will instituionalize and in my opinion at this early stage it is not
advisable.
jazz
That is already happening in state chapters. In my opinion IV still has a need to remain "grass root" organization. And as long as that is needed, "Recurring Contribution" would be more attractive tool. Once we set "Paid membership" concept it will instituionalize and in my opinion at this early stage it is not
advisable.
more...
dr_vroeg
06-16 09:58 AM
mette...just read your post...your mean :p
ghost
04-19 11:44 AM
- 2004 filed for Labor and started EB3 process.
- Company got acquired in later years . Filed new I140 ( I think it is called successor-in-interest)
- Recently started fresh EB2 process for interfiling of EB3 to EB2 . GC approved.
Thanks,
Jimytomy
Congratulations...it's painful to see EB-3 folks wait for so many years and then hear EB-2 folks complaining about porting! Hopefully, all of us will come together and realize that the only way for us to get out of this mess is by supporting IV goals (no country limits, recapture, etc.).
- Company got acquired in later years . Filed new I140 ( I think it is called successor-in-interest)
- Recently started fresh EB2 process for interfiling of EB3 to EB2 . GC approved.
Thanks,
Jimytomy
Congratulations...it's painful to see EB-3 folks wait for so many years and then hear EB-2 folks complaining about porting! Hopefully, all of us will come together and realize that the only way for us to get out of this mess is by supporting IV goals (no country limits, recapture, etc.).
more...
RollingStone12
04-23 08:31 PM
because we have some so called important members like who are nothing but plain MORONs
Well only members who are working for the good for the the whole EB community(Read My GC)
Not some stupid highly educated person who does not have any education in humanity but thinks he deserves GC before others because he is superior than them
PlainSpeak aka annshiela79 aka annsheila79
I have seen all your fight and how you were helpful for the EB community. Specially that skill with which you have single handedly killed the fund raising for the advocacy day. You are a bliss for this community. :D
Now come back as annshiela79 and start the bashing...
P.S: Your communication is pathetic at best...I couldnt believe you have got your MBA from a US business school. Is is it TVU...are you one of those elite 1500 students from that great state. Take a break from IV and spend time to improve your communication. No one is giving GC for your hightly educated humanity (you are a disgrace for the humanity though)...what a piece of crap you are. Havent you ever ashamed yourself for being a stupidest person on earth. May be you are too stupid to understand you are a stupid. Its a bliss and admire you for that.
Well only members who are working for the good for the the whole EB community(Read My GC)
Not some stupid highly educated person who does not have any education in humanity but thinks he deserves GC before others because he is superior than them
PlainSpeak aka annshiela79 aka annsheila79
I have seen all your fight and how you were helpful for the EB community. Specially that skill with which you have single handedly killed the fund raising for the advocacy day. You are a bliss for this community. :D
Now come back as annshiela79 and start the bashing...
P.S: Your communication is pathetic at best...I couldnt believe you have got your MBA from a US business school. Is is it TVU...are you one of those elite 1500 students from that great state. Take a break from IV and spend time to improve your communication. No one is giving GC for your hightly educated humanity (you are a disgrace for the humanity though)...what a piece of crap you are. Havent you ever ashamed yourself for being a stupidest person on earth. May be you are too stupid to understand you are a stupid. Its a bliss and admire you for that.
2010 Nadia Farès Biorhythm
dudu
04-07 04:58 PM
Nothing will change unless you make it. I also call two senators and sent web fax.
Keep good work, let more person to join!!
Keep good work, let more person to join!!
more...
immigc06
10-02 02:35 PM
reno_john,
Totally agree with you.
Totally agree with you.
hair nadia fares photo 4
smartboy75
09-30 02:08 PM
IVans:
I'm in the US on a H1B visa since Oct, 2003. My current approval notice
(I 797) has an expiry date of April, 2008. However I do not have a stamp on my passport reflecting the expiry on April, 2008. The only H1B stamp on my passport was that obtained just before my first entry to the U.S on a H1B and the expiry date shows June,2005. I didn't have to leave the country since my entry date and hence didn't find the need to get the visa (current approval) stamped on my passport.
Since one can apply for a H1B extension 6 months before the actual expiry date which will be November 2007 in my case and if I do so and obtain a new approval notice (with an extension of upto 3 years as I have a I 140 approved with my current employer) and if that notice has an expiry of April 2011, then if I go to the Canadian US embassy in Jan, 2008 to get my H1B stamping done in the month of January, 2008, will the new stamp have an expiry date of April, 2008 (current approval notice) or can I get a stamp valid until April, 2011 (based on latest approval notice)?
Your help is highly appreciated.
Hey sumanvenkatappa...
You seem to be a Junior member so I would like to tell you that if you have query that is not relevant to the one already open , you start a new Thread. You do not post your query to an existing thread and piggyback on it.
You can go to FORUM and click on NEW THREAD and enter an appropriate title and then enter your query.
hope this helps you to come to speed with the IV query posting convention...
To put it in other words...lets say u r very hungry and go in a restaurant....Just bcoz you r very hungry you don't start to eat from somebody else's plate....you would take ur own seat SEPARATELY and order your own food.....Think of posting query's in the forumn similar to that....And that goes for everyone else hijacking somebody else's threads..
Don't mean to be RUDE ..but I am getting sick of people hijacking threads and deviating from the original query...
I'm in the US on a H1B visa since Oct, 2003. My current approval notice
(I 797) has an expiry date of April, 2008. However I do not have a stamp on my passport reflecting the expiry on April, 2008. The only H1B stamp on my passport was that obtained just before my first entry to the U.S on a H1B and the expiry date shows June,2005. I didn't have to leave the country since my entry date and hence didn't find the need to get the visa (current approval) stamped on my passport.
Since one can apply for a H1B extension 6 months before the actual expiry date which will be November 2007 in my case and if I do so and obtain a new approval notice (with an extension of upto 3 years as I have a I 140 approved with my current employer) and if that notice has an expiry of April 2011, then if I go to the Canadian US embassy in Jan, 2008 to get my H1B stamping done in the month of January, 2008, will the new stamp have an expiry date of April, 2008 (current approval notice) or can I get a stamp valid until April, 2011 (based on latest approval notice)?
Your help is highly appreciated.
Hey sumanvenkatappa...
You seem to be a Junior member so I would like to tell you that if you have query that is not relevant to the one already open , you start a new Thread. You do not post your query to an existing thread and piggyback on it.
You can go to FORUM and click on NEW THREAD and enter an appropriate title and then enter your query.
hope this helps you to come to speed with the IV query posting convention...
To put it in other words...lets say u r very hungry and go in a restaurant....Just bcoz you r very hungry you don't start to eat from somebody else's plate....you would take ur own seat SEPARATELY and order your own food.....Think of posting query's in the forumn similar to that....And that goes for everyone else hijacking somebody else's threads..
Don't mean to be RUDE ..but I am getting sick of people hijacking threads and deviating from the original query...
more...
NNReddy
04-19 02:28 PM
I am working for a fortune 100 company for last 12 years, rose to a senior level position. It's not easy for me to leave my present job and get the same position,level, responsibility and salary and potential for future growth. Except GC I have everythign else, but sometimes the wait is frustrating.
hot nadia fares Image
nc14
03-08 02:24 PM
Macaca, you are so right in asking those blunt questions but is that going to make a difference? I dont think so, your audience here is very thick skinned and will come up with all the BS in the world to not contribute.
I think we should not allow Leechers to start new threads. Conservation of resources should also be on the priority list when raising the money is such a difficult task.
Well said, logic life too.
__________________________________________________ ____
$20 recurring contribution since Jan 2007
I think we should not allow Leechers to start new threads. Conservation of resources should also be on the priority list when raising the money is such a difficult task.
Well said, logic life too.
__________________________________________________ ____
$20 recurring contribution since Jan 2007
more...
house Actress Nadia Fares arrives
snathan
04-20 05:00 PM
In any case, why should someone be SO disturbed if some lawyer says "I will try to prove your degree equivalency for trying to get into EB2"?
Going by folks' behavior here, I am inclined to think, some simply hate such a lawyer for nothing more than personal interests
We are all here for personal interests...:D
Going by folks' behavior here, I am inclined to think, some simply hate such a lawyer for nothing more than personal interests
We are all here for personal interests...:D
tattoo Azra Akin and Nadia Fares.
indiadivided
02-14 10:36 AM
I think Mr. MACACA, it will better if this word (Macaca) is not repeated, since promoting this word might convert this into a word for Indians like the N word. So get your nick changed.
I have read the above book and other books (lateral thinking, ...) by Edward de bono; he has written a lot of (non expensive) books. I strongly recommend his books to the open minded reader.
I should also be banned soon. My post was not published on Friday. I did not praise logiclife for the Friday episode. I do understand that my question's will not get answered.
On the other hand, I see absolutely no content in anand26's posts. Such posts are a complete waste of time for our cause.
I have read the above book and other books (lateral thinking, ...) by Edward de bono; he has written a lot of (non expensive) books. I strongly recommend his books to the open minded reader.
I should also be banned soon. My post was not published on Friday. I did not praise logiclife for the Friday episode. I do understand that my question's will not get answered.
On the other hand, I see absolutely no content in anand26's posts. Such posts are a complete waste of time for our cause.
more...
pictures than her, and his primo
drirshad
06-11 04:50 AM
At least for the consultation phase hire a good lawyer, there are scores of lawsuits filed each year but as long there was no life threatening injuries in an accident you can get out of it. This should not be a criminal conviction and should not hurt your gc process. Again I am just assuming the back up ended in some dent to the other persons vehicle or were they walking and you hit them there were injuries involved.
http://www.findlaw.com
http://www.findlaw.com
dresses Nadia Fares middot; « Back
desi3933
01-29 01:01 PM
desi - from your posts - you always seem to look at things from all sides and your perspectives and views tend to look like "perfect law in perfect world"
Not sure if you are a lawyer or you have a lot of insight into things, but in real world, even lawmaking is unique and vague. Courts and judges go by how best the case is presented and how and in what angle it can be viewed from and how similar things were dealt with in past.
Litigation experts also look at the psychological aspect of stuff. what I want to say is, the entire process of litigation is a huge animal and we can never judge or assess that.
One of my cousin sister is a criminal lawyer in India and when we get to hear the inside scoop of how stuff is handled in courts you will be surprised that your common knowledge about the law is just not good enough.
There are a lot of factors that go into the so caled legal world and mere book knowledge may not be sufficient.
Your views are good, but they definitely are "bookish" in nature.
I am not a lawyer, however I have been studying immigration laws for couple of years. I have gone thru manay AAO and BIA decisions to understand the laws and more important, their current interpretation.
One can learn a lot what arguments staffing companies have put in when their I-129 (H1-B) and I-140 petitions are denied.
My views may be *bookish*, but they are based on lot of experience behind them.
BTW, I work full time for Fortune-50 company (Finance area).
_______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
Not a legal advice.
Not sure if you are a lawyer or you have a lot of insight into things, but in real world, even lawmaking is unique and vague. Courts and judges go by how best the case is presented and how and in what angle it can be viewed from and how similar things were dealt with in past.
Litigation experts also look at the psychological aspect of stuff. what I want to say is, the entire process of litigation is a huge animal and we can never judge or assess that.
One of my cousin sister is a criminal lawyer in India and when we get to hear the inside scoop of how stuff is handled in courts you will be surprised that your common knowledge about the law is just not good enough.
There are a lot of factors that go into the so caled legal world and mere book knowledge may not be sufficient.
Your views are good, but they definitely are "bookish" in nature.
I am not a lawyer, however I have been studying immigration laws for couple of years. I have gone thru manay AAO and BIA decisions to understand the laws and more important, their current interpretation.
One can learn a lot what arguments staffing companies have put in when their I-129 (H1-B) and I-140 petitions are denied.
My views may be *bookish*, but they are based on lot of experience behind them.
BTW, I work full time for Fortune-50 company (Finance area).
_______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
Not a legal advice.
more...
makeup Celebrity Picture: Nadia Fares
forever
07-19 09:47 AM
It gives a solace that there are still some good people out there in this mean world. It is ridiculous to point out that it is a typo. Other than money what Aman and others have done is priceless.
girlfriend nadia fares photo 5
starscream
09-17 12:56 PM
Is this a good sign or bad sign for HR 5882? -
She did withdraw! I think we'll go on to the next bill.
She did withdraw! I think we'll go on to the next bill.
hairstyles Nadia Fares Nadia Fares
dummgelauft
10-29 10:35 AM
People, since everybody here seems to be under the impression the the Secretary of DHS is just there to read their tales of anguish about their green card process, MAY I please advise that her name be spelt properly. the spellings of her last name are N_A_P_O_L_I_T_A_N_O
pappu
04-26 11:45 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2009/db20090423_219068.htm
But advocates for skilled immigrants�many of whom remain stuck for years on H-1Bs waiting in the long queue for permanent residency�worry that the bill is a political maneuver rather than an earnest effort at reform. Aman Kapoor, president of the skilled immigrant advocate group Immigration Voice, says that a more effective bill would ensure H-1B visa workers are on a level playing field with U.S. workers. "Skilled immigrants on H-1Bs don't get the same rights and protections as everyone else," says Kapoor. "So wouldn't the solution be to empower and enable the skilled immigrants on H-1Bs such that�skilled immigrants on H-1s have adequate protections so that no one can take advantage of [them]? But no one wants to talk about protections for skilled immigrants."
But advocates for skilled immigrants�many of whom remain stuck for years on H-1Bs waiting in the long queue for permanent residency�worry that the bill is a political maneuver rather than an earnest effort at reform. Aman Kapoor, president of the skilled immigrant advocate group Immigration Voice, says that a more effective bill would ensure H-1B visa workers are on a level playing field with U.S. workers. "Skilled immigrants on H-1Bs don't get the same rights and protections as everyone else," says Kapoor. "So wouldn't the solution be to empower and enable the skilled immigrants on H-1Bs such that�skilled immigrants on H-1s have adequate protections so that no one can take advantage of [them]? But no one wants to talk about protections for skilled immigrants."
h1vegas
06-12 01:48 PM
What needs to be done
Lets form an agenda guys
PD DECEMBER 2003 EB3
Lets form an agenda guys
PD DECEMBER 2003 EB3