asanghi
10-08 01:49 PM
They might be trying to put pressure on US govt to agree to totalization agreement. The number of Americans working in India is on rise. It is nowhere close to the number of Indians working in US though.
wallpaper will smith and family-2852
shinjisakaru
05-25 01:26 PM
Fax sent
eilsoe
10-02 02:48 PM
It's for Filter Queen Danmark A/S... my dad and I, plus one of his friends have been working on www.filterqueen.dk for some months now, now our client wants a pacman style game too...
Ilyas is doing me a favor by coding it.. :) I'm doing all the designing and graphic work.
You can ask him if you want in too, w're gonna need that tile engine thingy, you saw yourself how the game lagged...
Anyone who helps wil get their name in the credits on filterqueen.dk of course...
Ilyas is doing me a favor by coding it.. :) I'm doing all the designing and graphic work.
You can ask him if you want in too, w're gonna need that tile engine thingy, you saw yourself how the game lagged...
Anyone who helps wil get their name in the credits on filterqueen.dk of course...
2011 Willow Smith, Will Smith,
nfinity
07-01 07:52 PM
I am in as well. If they play games with peoples lives, USCIS does need to be sued.
more...
no-tec
10-15 10:49 PM
theres other ones but i guess these are the best for "grunge"
Macaca
04-22 09:07 AM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) -- Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation?, by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
more...
abisen
10-20 05:12 PM
Thanks for posting this. My I-140 was applied in May 2007 and I have not heard anything. USCIS says it has processed until July 24, 2007. What a bunch of lies.
There must be something wrong here as my I-140 was applied in April, 08 and it got approved. I think mine was to Nebraska Center.
There must be something wrong here as my I-140 was applied in April, 08 and it got approved. I think mine was to Nebraska Center.
2010 Will Smith amp; Family At The L.A
gmpa
01-17 01:20 PM
My H1 and family's H4 non-premium extensions were applied on 10/12/07 and approved from Vermont last week on 1/10/08. Approvals not yet physically received. These extensions were on the basis of approved I-140 and retrogressed EB-3 PD.
more...
Mikoers
February 19th, 2004, 07:52 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it would be sheer genius if Kodak was to license the Canon mount? Imagine if they offered both Nikon and Canon mounts (even better - an interchangeable mount plate so you could have it both ways on one body)!
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
It could possibly be Kodak prefer Nikon bodies and lenses. Mike
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
It could possibly be Kodak prefer Nikon bodies and lenses. Mike
hair The very talented Smith family
senthil1
07-02 09:46 AM
I heard Changes must be made in I140 to do Consular processing from I485
more...
Flashbaby1010
10-27 12:04 PM
I didn't see my post listed. Here's a link to the thread
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2511972#post2511972
Hi everyone,
Here is a list of all entries currently submitted to the Buttons contest:
Church Time by birdwing (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336684)
SplasH by sb0k (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336746)
SimpleButton by Scythe (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336944)
Always wear a smile by xxxheeroxxx (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336981)
Brrrr! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337076)
Flower by flocke (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337163)
Farmyard: Baa! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
Farmyard: Moo! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
Farmyard: Oink! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
Farmyard: Cheep! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
KirupaScript by idark (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337154)
First Alien on the Moon by excogitator (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337251)
LOST! by ritwik_ind (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337623)
If you don't see your entry in the list, please send reply here with a link to your thread.
Cheers!
Kirupa :)
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2511972#post2511972
Hi everyone,
Here is a list of all entries currently submitted to the Buttons contest:
Church Time by birdwing (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336684)
SplasH by sb0k (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336746)
SimpleButton by Scythe (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336944)
Always wear a smile by xxxheeroxxx (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336981)
Brrrr! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337076)
Flower by flocke (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337163)
Farmyard: Baa! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
Farmyard: Moo! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
Farmyard: Oink! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
Farmyard: Cheep! by glosrfc (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337148)
KirupaScript by idark (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337154)
First Alien on the Moon by excogitator (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337251)
LOST! by ritwik_ind (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337623)
If you don't see your entry in the list, please send reply here with a link to your thread.
Cheers!
Kirupa :)
hot Will Smith and Family at the
jhokimi
02-02 01:37 PM
I filed for labor cert in april 28, 2004 and I now have all approved including I-140. My I-485 receipt date is July 3, 2007 in Nebraska. Does teh July 19 date USCIS is showing mean I will get my green card soon. What should I expect moving forward and what type of timeline?
Thanks guys for all your help.
Thanks guys for all your help.
more...
house Jaden Smith, Will Smith
njboy
02-23 10:16 AM
if you have an h1 approval till a later date than the I-94 was given for,( because of passport expiring), then making a long trip to Canada was an exercise in futility. All you had to do was go to your closest international airport and talk to a Customs and Border Protection Agent. He will gladly give you a new I-94 which will have a validity date till the date on your H1-B petition.
tattoo Entertainment mogul Will Smith
easygoer
02-10 06:09 PM
Someone can shed light why these numbers would disappear before march and would not get rolled over to EB3 and EB2? What are the provisions?
more...
pictures Pinkett Smith, Will Smith
gckalafda
03-20 11:28 AM
I got RFE on 140 asking
all my expereince letter proir to 2002 ( I came US in 1999) and By the time I worked with two companys.
Now I got one company exp letter and other one closed and I couldn't able to get the letter. as per sources and attorney advice I am submitting coleague affidavit.
and also they asked me all w2's where I worked only few months in 2004 and w2 amount is not that great.
I am still fearing how do USCIS take in to consideration when they finalise the case.
Do you think all these are substantiate my case , or they may come with another RFE or denial..
Please advise me what I want to do, I haven't submitt my case yet.
Thanks
all my expereince letter proir to 2002 ( I came US in 1999) and By the time I worked with two companys.
Now I got one company exp letter and other one closed and I couldn't able to get the letter. as per sources and attorney advice I am submitting coleague affidavit.
and also they asked me all w2's where I worked only few months in 2004 and w2 amount is not that great.
I am still fearing how do USCIS take in to consideration when they finalise the case.
Do you think all these are substantiate my case , or they may come with another RFE or denial..
Please advise me what I want to do, I haven't submitt my case yet.
Thanks
dresses will-smith-family.jpg
eb3_nepa
02-18 11:17 AM
Your reasoning is nearly correct. But you are missing Two points:
1. There will be some cases from BECs which could not file AOSs in time since their labors did not clear for them in the july/aug timeframe. Only when these have cleared will the chances of further retrogression decrease.
2. ALSO - Just as an example, If there are 100000 Eb2s with PDs of 2005. We know that there are NOT 10000 visa #s available for EB2s, in that case too, the dates will retrogress - since thats the only way they can prevent visa #s being used.
Am I making much sense ?
My point here is:
Now there is NO reason for the DOS to miscalculate or not know how many applications are out there for AOS.
Someone mentioned that some BEC ppl were not able to apply for AOS coz their applications did not get released in time, that is a valid point. So maybe we should see one last backward movement if any and then it should be strictly forward movement. VERY SLOW movement i agree but forward movement.
1. There will be some cases from BECs which could not file AOSs in time since their labors did not clear for them in the july/aug timeframe. Only when these have cleared will the chances of further retrogression decrease.
2. ALSO - Just as an example, If there are 100000 Eb2s with PDs of 2005. We know that there are NOT 10000 visa #s available for EB2s, in that case too, the dates will retrogress - since thats the only way they can prevent visa #s being used.
Am I making much sense ?
My point here is:
Now there is NO reason for the DOS to miscalculate or not know how many applications are out there for AOS.
Someone mentioned that some BEC ppl were not able to apply for AOS coz their applications did not get released in time, that is a valid point. So maybe we should see one last backward movement if any and then it should be strictly forward movement. VERY SLOW movement i agree but forward movement.
more...
makeup of actor Will Smith and
Jaime
09-05 04:58 PM
Unless of course you are an illegal maid from El Salvador, in which case you can apply for your green card in person at any USCIS window by 9 am, and pick up your green card by 4 pm the same day. You have the option of premium processing, where if you pay $5 extra, you get along with your green card a U.S. passport, voters regsitration card, perpetual drivers license and a pack of "Hershey's Kisses" (or an actual kiss from the USCIS officer, your choice)
girlfriend Will Smith and Team Win Best
greenguru
01-07 02:42 AM
Congratulations!
Very nice post.. good to read it.. HOpe ur 485 gets approves soon as well..
Good spirit..
cheers
Very nice post.. good to read it.. HOpe ur 485 gets approves soon as well..
Good spirit..
cheers
hairstyles Will and Jada Pinkett Smith
imind
03-12 03:50 PM
You can go to dice.com or any other jobportal and search for any IT job and you will see lot of jobs says:
NO H1Bs....ONLY EAD/GC/CITIZENSIP .
NO H1Bs....ONLY EAD/GC/CITIZENSIP .
disco
02-11 01:11 AM
Nikhil2,
I have a similar situation. Same Company, Same position Name. Different Job Requirements & Job Description. Old Labor RIR EB3 (PD 2003). New Labor EB2 PERM.
My Lawyer seems to be comfortable & Confident. He is the one suggested this approach. Earlier I requested if we could apply for a different position with the same company. He decided to go with above approach and felt confident about it and also advocated the above to be a right and easy approach.
I am not a lawyer. But our company lawyer is very experienced and has big clients in Silicon Valley. Also He has done a lot of H1/Labor/Green Card for our company itself and hence I have confidence in him.
Hope this is helpful. People please let me know if as per your information this could be inappropriate. If that is the case I want to raise this at the right time as the labor application is still in a very initial stage.
Thanks
I plan to transfer the priority date of an old LC to a new one. My attorney said my case won't work, since the two LCs belong to the same company and the positions (job titles) are the same. She indicates at least one of them needs be different.
I spent a whole night and cannot find any info about this.
Do you happen to know this? Any comments or links would be appreciated.
I have a similar situation. Same Company, Same position Name. Different Job Requirements & Job Description. Old Labor RIR EB3 (PD 2003). New Labor EB2 PERM.
My Lawyer seems to be comfortable & Confident. He is the one suggested this approach. Earlier I requested if we could apply for a different position with the same company. He decided to go with above approach and felt confident about it and also advocated the above to be a right and easy approach.
I am not a lawyer. But our company lawyer is very experienced and has big clients in Silicon Valley. Also He has done a lot of H1/Labor/Green Card for our company itself and hence I have confidence in him.
Hope this is helpful. People please let me know if as per your information this could be inappropriate. If that is the case I want to raise this at the right time as the labor application is still in a very initial stage.
Thanks
I plan to transfer the priority date of an old LC to a new one. My attorney said my case won't work, since the two LCs belong to the same company and the positions (job titles) are the same. She indicates at least one of them needs be different.
I spent a whole night and cannot find any info about this.
Do you happen to know this? Any comments or links would be appreciated.
pnara2
01-03 09:20 PM
Just think that you read a joke!
US Govt will try and squeeze every single penny whereever possible, especially, considering the high unemployment rates lingering around lately!
Infact Indian govt should learn how to milk money from the US corporates who operate in India. Probably they do now but unfortunately the benefits are not reaped by the common masses in india!
US Govt will try and squeeze every single penny whereever possible, especially, considering the high unemployment rates lingering around lately!
Infact Indian govt should learn how to milk money from the US corporates who operate in India. Probably they do now but unfortunately the benefits are not reaped by the common masses in india!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét