singhsa3
03-03 01:01 PM
I think you missed the point.
We are just saying that we are part of greater economic solution. Our cause has been supported by Greenspan, compete america and several other organizations.
We offer Skills, We offer buying power, We offer much more that will benefit America for the years to come...
It is high time that we be taken seriously and our voices be heard...
We are just saying that we are part of greater economic solution. Our cause has been supported by Greenspan, compete america and several other organizations.
We offer Skills, We offer buying power, We offer much more that will benefit America for the years to come...
It is high time that we be taken seriously and our voices be heard...
wallpaper makeup HayleyWilliams.jpg
jgh_res
07-05 12:38 PM
My background: I am a desi. I contributed around 300$ or so. I filed my 485 couple of years ago. So I am not that desperate.
Onething about desi's I figured out over a long time, they dont mind spending zillion dollars for attorney fees, USCIS fees, whatever fees. But they really mind paying 20$/month towards IV or anything, if there is a way they can get it for free.
What an epitome of hypocrisy? Non Profit org working towards GC alleviatoon and needs resources for lobbying. Yeah! The Blue skies are showering green on IV every day. How about us working for a Non profit org or EDU for free? They all serve noble causes. Dont they?
Onething about desi's I figured out over a long time, they dont mind spending zillion dollars for attorney fees, USCIS fees, whatever fees. But they really mind paying 20$/month towards IV or anything, if there is a way they can get it for free.
What an epitome of hypocrisy? Non Profit org working towards GC alleviatoon and needs resources for lobbying. Yeah! The Blue skies are showering green on IV every day. How about us working for a Non profit org or EDU for free? They all serve noble causes. Dont they?
dvb123
04-04 10:31 AM
I think that there is little sympathy or need for the government to reform employment based immigration for IT people. I believe a lot of professors, researchers etc are stuck in EB2 category definately because very few people qualify for EB1. If IV collects a list of these people and then gets petitions from them I think there will be a good case to present to the Senators.
2011 Hayley Williams
thesparky007
03-07 07:52 PM
i downloaded it yesterday and found it pretty
confusing!
i would be glad if anyone can show me some nice tuts
or help me wiht it
confusing!
i would be glad if anyone can show me some nice tuts
or help me wiht it
more...
saimrathi
08-15 04:02 PM
This is already on another thread..!!!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12391
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12391
payur
01-16 09:12 PM
Contributing $20/month
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
more...
gc28262
04-11 09:03 PM
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your question. Let me explain you in details.
I am not sure about Mexican illegals but I can tell about Indian.
Normally person come here illegally alone. Very few people are coming here with spouse. it is absolutely sure that their kids are at backhome with other family members. Many illegal people have used 245(i) and all have priority date before April 2001 as before 2001 they should have to file labor. Fraudulent practice was prevailed in the small business community. They used to file labor certificate in dummy name and once it approve, they are selling to others (labor substitution was legal at that time). Most of 245(i) cases have purchased labor with big $$$. All the 245(i) were approved from 2002 to now. Their case is counting in EB3 category. Once persons case is approved, he will file I 824 (Follow to join family members) for wife and/or kids who are waiting in India. Once I 824 approve, case is transferred to respective CP at back home. It is slow process and take any where from 1 year to 4 to 5 years in some cases. This cases are consuming EB3 quota. We don't know how many cases are in pipeline. But I know few people whose GC was approved under 245(i) and their kids are waiting at Back home. This is the reason why EB3 India is struck around 2001 for many years. If still lot of 245(i) derivative cases are in pipeline, it can retrogress back to April 2001.
I am highlighting truth so that we should not make any mistake in next CIR (same channel and resources for EB legals and 13 millions illegal). if history repeat for CIR, it may not hurt all legal EB community who are reading this post today but future generation EB legal have big blow.
My dear friend Ron Hira is calling me racist !! I always laughing for his immaturity (In fact, I ignore his post). Insisting for following rule is racist. Opposing people who kept EB legal provisions hostages since 2005 is racist??? people in this forum are much smart who is talking what !!!
I remember Mahatma Ganghi's quotes:
" I can wait 100 years for freedom but don't want it through violent route"
khodalmd,
Thanks for the clarification. I think you are right in terms of "follow to join" 245(i) cases. EB3-I may not be out of 245(i) bump yet.
Here is a USCIS memo regarding 245(i)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/245i.pdf
Relevant portion:
"Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or labor certification applications will marry or have children after the qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status."
On another note, wouldn't the spouses/children of 245(i) applicants be eligible for "follow to join" applications when the primary applicant's application is still pending ? Why would they wait till the approval of primary's AOS application ?
I am not sure about Mexican illegals but I can tell about Indian.
Normally person come here illegally alone. Very few people are coming here with spouse. it is absolutely sure that their kids are at backhome with other family members. Many illegal people have used 245(i) and all have priority date before April 2001 as before 2001 they should have to file labor. Fraudulent practice was prevailed in the small business community. They used to file labor certificate in dummy name and once it approve, they are selling to others (labor substitution was legal at that time). Most of 245(i) cases have purchased labor with big $$$. All the 245(i) were approved from 2002 to now. Their case is counting in EB3 category. Once persons case is approved, he will file I 824 (Follow to join family members) for wife and/or kids who are waiting in India. Once I 824 approve, case is transferred to respective CP at back home. It is slow process and take any where from 1 year to 4 to 5 years in some cases. This cases are consuming EB3 quota. We don't know how many cases are in pipeline. But I know few people whose GC was approved under 245(i) and their kids are waiting at Back home. This is the reason why EB3 India is struck around 2001 for many years. If still lot of 245(i) derivative cases are in pipeline, it can retrogress back to April 2001.
I am highlighting truth so that we should not make any mistake in next CIR (same channel and resources for EB legals and 13 millions illegal). if history repeat for CIR, it may not hurt all legal EB community who are reading this post today but future generation EB legal have big blow.
My dear friend Ron Hira is calling me racist !! I always laughing for his immaturity (In fact, I ignore his post). Insisting for following rule is racist. Opposing people who kept EB legal provisions hostages since 2005 is racist??? people in this forum are much smart who is talking what !!!
I remember Mahatma Ganghi's quotes:
" I can wait 100 years for freedom but don't want it through violent route"
khodalmd,
Thanks for the clarification. I think you are right in terms of "follow to join" 245(i) cases. EB3-I may not be out of 245(i) bump yet.
Here is a USCIS memo regarding 245(i)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/245i.pdf
Relevant portion:
"Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or labor certification applications will marry or have children after the qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status."
On another note, wouldn't the spouses/children of 245(i) applicants be eligible for "follow to join" applications when the primary applicant's application is still pending ? Why would they wait till the approval of primary's AOS application ?
2010 tattoo hayley williams
frostrated
06-11 03:55 PM
Done. Sent to senators in Texas. Also sent to house members just so that they are aware.
Sent to all friends : Citizens, GC holders and those in the same boat as us. Even sent to native born Americans to help us to help their country.
Sent to all friends : Citizens, GC holders and those in the same boat as us. Even sent to native born Americans to help us to help their country.
more...
McLuvin
03-09 12:27 PM
Anyone for May 09 predictions???
hair Hayley Williams
invincibleasian
01-31 06:17 PM
I am actually looking for a very simple answer : My husband whose EB-2 I-140 had been approved some time back, wants to quit his job & pursue MBA on F-1. Would the I-539 be approved in this case ? Or should he plan for H4.
BTW , he has no plans to travel out of country so stamping is not an issue.
H4 is the best option. F1to h1 is a pain!
BTW , he has no plans to travel out of country so stamping is not an issue.
H4 is the best option. F1to h1 is a pain!
more...
senthil1
02-19 09:00 AM
My assesment is not based on any single case. If this comes as law then people who are here for more than 5 years will get gc immeditely. Because of that backlog will be reduced and waiting time also will be reduced for others those who are here less than 5 years and they will also get GC. Anyhow this bill will not be taken unless CIR is introduced
Dude I think you are happy because you are above 5 years here and I feel good for you. For myself, I donot want green card after landing on airport, I just want GC process to be improved for people <5 years. This bill will be just a onetime measure i.e. whoever has 5 years on the day it was enacted gets GC, it is not like if I am here for 5 years even after 2 months of passing the bill i will get GC. So, in all, fight for EB GC goes on and it has to be made easier than what has been done for illegal immigrants with >5year rule. People will <5years should not have to go thru same grind. This bill directly does nothing for EB apart from 'temporarily' taking out people with >5years to decrease backlog. That will be temporary. In fact, in long term, it makes EB difficult.
Again, people with >5years should be happy but not tell people with <5years what to do. We definately need to contact congress and Pres office to improve this bill to make it fair for legal immigrants too.
Dude I think you are happy because you are above 5 years here and I feel good for you. For myself, I donot want green card after landing on airport, I just want GC process to be improved for people <5 years. This bill will be just a onetime measure i.e. whoever has 5 years on the day it was enacted gets GC, it is not like if I am here for 5 years even after 2 months of passing the bill i will get GC. So, in all, fight for EB GC goes on and it has to be made easier than what has been done for illegal immigrants with >5year rule. People will <5years should not have to go thru same grind. This bill directly does nothing for EB apart from 'temporarily' taking out people with >5years to decrease backlog. That will be temporary. In fact, in long term, it makes EB difficult.
Again, people with >5years should be happy but not tell people with <5years what to do. We definately need to contact congress and Pres office to improve this bill to make it fair for legal immigrants too.
hot superstar Hayley Williams
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
more...
house Hayley Williams Showing Off
logiclife
06-30 06:22 PM
The current events starting from a rumor has caused frustration in our members. The news coming out of AILA got us into action and we are working on trying to prevent this visa bulletin disaster to happen for our members. Due to weekend, There are less opportunities to pursue but we are not taking this as an excuse and please know that IV is working this weekend and have been working ever since we heard about this news and are using all measures and contacts at the appropriate levels of government to help our members. At this time we do not have a conclusive outcome for our members as the efforts are continuing. The efforts are in full swing and will continue until the bulletin comes out. We are prepared to make efforts on Monday when the offices open.
Be assured we are considering all options. We are also working with like minded organizations and on
our own to prevent this disaster to happen for our members. IV is committed to pursue measures in case of any
visa bulletin that will change the current dates.
Please be patient and continue to support us. We will continue to update on the website as we have any more
update to share. The DOS's actions, USCIS actions and the resulting litigation from USCIS or other plaintiffs will take time to materialize and core group will post updates and action items as soon as there is something actionable that we wish for all our members to participate.
Please continue with your 485 filing process and file your 485 as soon as possible. Do not be late and do not postpone or slow down your 485 filing work due to rumors or other fears. Keep doing what you are doing.
IV may post update about its course of action as early as Sunday evening.
IV team
Be assured we are considering all options. We are also working with like minded organizations and on
our own to prevent this disaster to happen for our members. IV is committed to pursue measures in case of any
visa bulletin that will change the current dates.
Please be patient and continue to support us. We will continue to update on the website as we have any more
update to share. The DOS's actions, USCIS actions and the resulting litigation from USCIS or other plaintiffs will take time to materialize and core group will post updates and action items as soon as there is something actionable that we wish for all our members to participate.
Please continue with your 485 filing process and file your 485 as soon as possible. Do not be late and do not postpone or slow down your 485 filing work due to rumors or other fears. Keep doing what you are doing.
IV may post update about its course of action as early as Sunday evening.
IV team
tattoo hayley williams tattoo.
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
more...
pictures hayley williams tattoo. hayley
belmontboy
02-19 04:11 AM
1) People who are illegal here for more than 5 years will get green card/path to citizenship but people who are legally here for 4 years and 11 months gets nothing.
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
dresses 2011 Hayley Williams paramore
tejonidhi
09-10 04:23 PM
i guess they were very happy that they discussed the horse issue and they decided to take a well deserved break...as for 5882 who cares, as one poster mentioned, the horses are US citizens and they support the economy by eating grass. Republicans are happy because legal horses will be eating legal grass as opposed to illegals cutting and shipping grass to the horses. Democrats will be happy because the horses are well looked after.
... i am just venting but i think this is a sign of the times we live in :D .To the folks who say that everything will be ok with the new Prez comes, remember the congress will mostly stay the same.
where do we stand. I thought we are legal horses.
... i am just venting but i think this is a sign of the times we live in :D .To the folks who say that everything will be ok with the new Prez comes, remember the congress will mostly stay the same.
where do we stand. I thought we are legal horses.
more...
makeup hayley williams tattoos pics
chanduv23
10-02 09:54 PM
All NJ mebers follow this link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14048
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14048
girlfriend Hayley Williams#39;s New Tattoo.
zuhail
03-10 01:25 PM
I disagree that this is not the right time for visa recapturing. It will be never be the right time.
Do you think the efforts like sending 1000 pizzas etc would not draw negative publicity. Think again.
What we are asking is to recapture the unused visa numbers. In this climate of high unemployment rate, I do not think there is any other legislation that would draw less negative publicity.
It is to be strongly publicized and understood that these recapturing unused visa numbers are only going to help the non-immigrants who are already employed and who are on the path to seek permanent resident status. This is NOT creating new H1B visas NOR giving away the jobs to the non-immigrants.
Do you think the efforts like sending 1000 pizzas etc would not draw negative publicity. Think again.
What we are asking is to recapture the unused visa numbers. In this climate of high unemployment rate, I do not think there is any other legislation that would draw less negative publicity.
It is to be strongly publicized and understood that these recapturing unused visa numbers are only going to help the non-immigrants who are already employed and who are on the path to seek permanent resident status. This is NOT creating new H1B visas NOR giving away the jobs to the non-immigrants.
hairstyles hayley williams tattoo
nitlsu
04-04 11:16 AM
I don't think this bill would be of any consequence to the goal of IV unless they can maybe attach some GC-relief provisions to it.
In reality this bill will never ever make it to the full Senate floor. Corporate America will ensure that it dies the same kind of death as all the immigration related bills from last year.
In reality this bill will never ever make it to the full Senate floor. Corporate America will ensure that it dies the same kind of death as all the immigration related bills from last year.
ita
02-02 03:25 PM
desi3933,
Thanks for your response. I did little digging on the H1 LCA front.Here's what I found out and I have one question too.
Now I've a LCA for my H1.But I also found out that each time I (employee) changes location there will be a new LCA and it's not one LCA per H1, at least in case of consulting.
I guess if there is a RFE we have to attach all the W2 and all the H1 LCA's. LCA has a start date and end date. Now my company says they don't have previous LCA.
If they say they don't have it then I don't know if they will be able to give me LCA if I leave the company and if there is RFE later.
All my W2 amount(s) are in good shape compared to the latest LCA which is for one of major metro areas in NorthEast.
Do you have any idea ,in case of RFE, what happens if we just send W2 without LCA/ with latest LCA?
Thank you.
W2 should be fine in most cases. Additionally, employment letter stating job duties, salary offered, dates is very useful. Please note that this salary could be different from GC Salary, however, it must be within the salary range mentioned in H1 LCA.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Thanks for your response. I did little digging on the H1 LCA front.Here's what I found out and I have one question too.
Now I've a LCA for my H1.But I also found out that each time I (employee) changes location there will be a new LCA and it's not one LCA per H1, at least in case of consulting.
I guess if there is a RFE we have to attach all the W2 and all the H1 LCA's. LCA has a start date and end date. Now my company says they don't have previous LCA.
If they say they don't have it then I don't know if they will be able to give me LCA if I leave the company and if there is RFE later.
All my W2 amount(s) are in good shape compared to the latest LCA which is for one of major metro areas in NorthEast.
Do you have any idea ,in case of RFE, what happens if we just send W2 without LCA/ with latest LCA?
Thank you.
W2 should be fine in most cases. Additionally, employment letter stating job duties, salary offered, dates is very useful. Please note that this salary could be different from GC Salary, however, it must be within the salary range mentioned in H1 LCA.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
ilikekilo
03-10 12:45 AM
what a shame!!!!!!!!1 Bleep bleep!!!