Abhinaym
09-04 02:09 PM
That would be sweet I guess. My PD is Oct. 07. :)
Same here. Would like the prayers along with waitforevergc....
:D
Same here. Would like the prayers along with waitforevergc....
:D
wallpaper londe hairstyles 2011.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
nixstor
03-05 03:19 PM
I guess that's how much they value the American Dream, so let it be, I'll pay that price, no prob.
Fine by me if they do offer some SLA. That's always been missing. Thats what I exactly pointed out in my comment. If they were to return my money back if they do not meet their SLA, no one will have issues. or just have PP for almost everything and give equal importance to people who either value time or money.
Fine by me if they do offer some SLA. That's always been missing. Thats what I exactly pointed out in my comment. If they were to return my money back if they do not meet their SLA, no one will have issues. or just have PP for almost everything and give equal importance to people who either value time or money.
2011 Short hairstyle 2011
gcisadawg
04-12 08:18 PM
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
That is incorrect. USCIS would send a copy of RFE to you as well.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
That is incorrect. USCIS would send a copy of RFE to you as well.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
more...
samuel5028
04-18 02:56 AM
Hello Memebers,
As my H-4 visa is rejected and I am trying to find other options. I would like to know if I can apply for tourist visa and how much possibility is there that it will be rejected. Please advise.
Thnaks
It depends upon immigration officer. Make sure you provide all the proofs that you will return to your home country.
As my H-4 visa is rejected and I am trying to find other options. I would like to know if I can apply for tourist visa and how much possibility is there that it will be rejected. Please advise.
Thnaks
It depends upon immigration officer. Make sure you provide all the proofs that you will return to your home country.
morchu
04-22 09:48 AM
Yes to both questions.
Priority date can be retained only after 140 approval.
I have seen PERM applications get approved with multiple locations mentioned.
But it is on a case by case basis. You may need to prove the requirement for multiple location.
Thanks Morchu for clarifying this. I do not want to be unlawful at anytime. That's why I am trying to understand this process as best as possible and then plan accordingly. so when you say this "You are NOT loosing "anything" by filing a second LC at the new location. You keep your priority date, and PERM is fast and I-140 processing time is 4 months or so" the only way to retain priority date is with approved I-140 .
Secondly, I read online either at this forum or at Murthy that one can include as part of "ETA form 9089" (Application for Permanent Employment Certification) a clause which states that the person "may be assigned to various, unanticipated sites throughout the United States". Is it true? And is it used widely by employers to retain flexibility?
Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!
Priority date can be retained only after 140 approval.
I have seen PERM applications get approved with multiple locations mentioned.
But it is on a case by case basis. You may need to prove the requirement for multiple location.
Thanks Morchu for clarifying this. I do not want to be unlawful at anytime. That's why I am trying to understand this process as best as possible and then plan accordingly. so when you say this "You are NOT loosing "anything" by filing a second LC at the new location. You keep your priority date, and PERM is fast and I-140 processing time is 4 months or so" the only way to retain priority date is with approved I-140 .
Secondly, I read online either at this forum or at Murthy that one can include as part of "ETA form 9089" (Application for Permanent Employment Certification) a clause which states that the person "may be assigned to various, unanticipated sites throughout the United States". Is it true? And is it used widely by employers to retain flexibility?
Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!
more...
SmileyFace
03-18 11:08 PM
Hi guys,
My wife doesnt have SSN yet. We both have our 485's pending. I have my SSN.
To get the Economic stimulus amount, we both have to file taxes with our SSNs. Since we dont her SSN, we cannot file before APR 17th.
So,
I am going to apply for a tax filing extension (which gives me 6 mths)
Simultaneously, I am going to apply for her EAD
Hopefully EAD takes 4 mths
Then I will apply for SSN
and then file our taxes with both our SSNs
hopefully, we get our economic stimulus after that.
Does this sound reasonable? or is there any other way I can do this?
Thanks.
Good luck to everybody.
My wife doesnt have SSN yet. We both have our 485's pending. I have my SSN.
To get the Economic stimulus amount, we both have to file taxes with our SSNs. Since we dont her SSN, we cannot file before APR 17th.
So,
I am going to apply for a tax filing extension (which gives me 6 mths)
Simultaneously, I am going to apply for her EAD
Hopefully EAD takes 4 mths
Then I will apply for SSN
and then file our taxes with both our SSNs
hopefully, we get our economic stimulus after that.
Does this sound reasonable? or is there any other way I can do this?
Thanks.
Good luck to everybody.
2010 Short Blonde Hairstyles
Xipe Totec
09-14 04:02 PM
I just _have_ to ask: what game was that?
more...
BornConfused
07-03 11:01 AM
LOL!
You are missing the point! Those flowers aren't meant for them! It is to show our protest in a unique way that will attract attention from the media! Till date there are only 3 websites that I have come across that covers this fiasco... Don't you want our plight announced in the media???
It may not make a difference today... but it will definitely make a difference tomorrow if we keep it up. Let the public know more about this broken immigration system. Raise awareness about every pain that we go through!
Of course I want this in the media, it SHOULD be in the media, it's pathetic that it isn't. Shows how little they care about new immigrants considering how most of us are very skilled workers and deserve this.
I am sending a message to my local fox news and if I have time maybe I will mail other news media at their websites-just to inform them about this. THAT is better than sending USCIS flowers. And it's still a Ghandi-esque protest.
You are missing the point! Those flowers aren't meant for them! It is to show our protest in a unique way that will attract attention from the media! Till date there are only 3 websites that I have come across that covers this fiasco... Don't you want our plight announced in the media???
It may not make a difference today... but it will definitely make a difference tomorrow if we keep it up. Let the public know more about this broken immigration system. Raise awareness about every pain that we go through!
Of course I want this in the media, it SHOULD be in the media, it's pathetic that it isn't. Shows how little they care about new immigrants considering how most of us are very skilled workers and deserve this.
I am sending a message to my local fox news and if I have time maybe I will mail other news media at their websites-just to inform them about this. THAT is better than sending USCIS flowers. And it's still a Ghandi-esque protest.
hair londe hairstyles 2011 pictures. Short Blonde Haircuts and
sanjay
12-28 10:01 AM
I have three friends waiting for I - 140 approval whose date are between Feb 16 - 22, 2007 and all are still waiting for approvals. online status show case pending. And dates in NSC shows April 6, 2007.
more...
snaidu
05-29 04:11 PM
AVS channel has an indian program every saturday starting 10am -12.00pm
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
hot short blonde hairstyles 2011
Green.Tech
03-03 12:36 PM
Hi everyone, I am seeking some help:
-My wife's Labor Certification was approved on Oct-09-2006
-Priority Date: April-30-2001
We did stay on H1B (wife) and H4 (me) in the US for about 9 years total, we did extend the H1B year by year once the initial 6year period ended (labor was still pending). We left the US on Dec-27-2007 and have been outside the US since. Now we have our new 5year Turist Visa B1/B2.
Sounds like you are one of those fake profiles.
No answer for you. Come back 1 year! (I hope you watch Seinfeld) :)
-My wife's Labor Certification was approved on Oct-09-2006
-Priority Date: April-30-2001
We did stay on H1B (wife) and H4 (me) in the US for about 9 years total, we did extend the H1B year by year once the initial 6year period ended (labor was still pending). We left the US on Dec-27-2007 and have been outside the US since. Now we have our new 5year Turist Visa B1/B2.
Sounds like you are one of those fake profiles.
No answer for you. Come back 1 year! (I hope you watch Seinfeld) :)
more...
house 2011 mens short blonde
rajenk
08-21 12:55 AM
Ok,
Today the paralegal staff at my lawyer's office told me that they got my wife's application rejected back on July 20th!! They were handling lot of filings and could not update me about this. I am happy that they pro actively re-filed the application. My wife's application was rejected because of improper fees! They filed again and reached USCIS Nebraska on 25th July. Now I am waiting for her application to be receipted.
Thanks
Raj
Today the paralegal staff at my lawyer's office told me that they got my wife's application rejected back on July 20th!! They were handling lot of filings and could not update me about this. I am happy that they pro actively re-filed the application. My wife's application was rejected because of improper fees! They filed again and reached USCIS Nebraska on 25th July. Now I am waiting for her application to be receipted.
Thanks
Raj
tattoo short blonde hairstyles 2011
Madan Ahluwalia
02-23 04:26 PM
Your wife will provide affidavit of support too. But if income is not enough, you can get someone else to be joint sponsor.
more...
pictures short blonde hairstyles 2011.
jsb
10-25 11:42 AM
I filed my application on July27th. Completed FP on 10th Oct. I have not received EAD yet. When i called USCIS, I got response to wait 90days from the receipt date.
USCIS is overhelmed with filings, so delay is everywhere. How come you got your FP done so fast? I filed on July 2, and got just receipts, nothing else.
USCIS is overhelmed with filings, so delay is everywhere. How come you got your FP done so fast? I filed on July 2, and got just receipts, nothing else.
dresses cute short haircuts for women
ziggy7bs
03-19 12:17 PM
I have already started procedure for filing a new PERM. Nothing will work the lawyer said. We have to file a new PERM.
try your senator. I might work. they have special staff at uscis. i am going to try it and see if they can get uscis to accept I-140.
try your senator. I might work. they have special staff at uscis. i am going to try it and see if they can get uscis to accept I-140.
more...
makeup Short hairstyles are a sign of
Munna Bhai
07-12 11:47 AM
any more help??
girlfriend Short Blonde Haircuts and
sash
06-20 04:05 PM
What is the ETA to get the receipt if you file in July 2007?
hairstyles Short blonde hairstyles 2011
GCard_Dream
07-10 02:37 PM
Appu:
What do you mean by "Both TB Test"? Did you mean skin test and X-ray? If so, is X-ray mandatory? I thought X-ray was optional depending on what the test result of the skin test. In other words, you don't have to have a X-ray if the skin test was negative. Would you please clarify.
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
What do you mean by "Both TB Test"? Did you mean skin test and X-ray? If so, is X-ray mandatory? I thought X-ray was optional depending on what the test result of the skin test. In other words, you don't have to have a X-ray if the skin test was negative. Would you please clarify.
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
need_EAD
05-18 02:56 PM
Nandini Nair's fees are very less and I got my PERM LC (in EB2) & I-140 approved through her without any questions. Real quick response!
She was a weekly columnist for Express Computer on immigration topics.
nnair@nair-law.com
www.nairlaw.com
She was a weekly columnist for Express Computer on immigration topics.
nnair@nair-law.com
www.nairlaw.com
copsmart
02-20 08:44 PM
You are not alone�
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
No comments:
Post a Comment