nav_kri
04-01 08:01 PM
I got this in an email from Maple International
"Please be rest assured that this news is not April Fool's joke.
Today the Alberta immigration department announced that on April 15, 2009
the on-demand occupation list of Alberta will be changed. Any applications
postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the current list.
All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed
based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
The possible change
It is very possible that IT related occupations will be removed from the
on-demand list on April 15, 2009. The original intent of this Alberta
program was to recruit H-1B professionals from USA. The economy of Alberta
was booming in recent 5 years because of the discovery of huge oil reserve
in the northern part of the province. Alberta needs engineers such as
Chemical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers, etc to work for
its oil industry and its oil based economy.
However, it ended up that the overwhelming majority of applicants of this
Alberta program are IT consultants, programmers and software engineers in
USA. Alberta does need some IT professionals but it for sure does not need a
lot of them."
Is this true? I dont find any info related to this on Maple International website or Alberta Immigration website.
"Please be rest assured that this news is not April Fool's joke.
Today the Alberta immigration department announced that on April 15, 2009
the on-demand occupation list of Alberta will be changed. Any applications
postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the current list.
All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed
based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
The possible change
It is very possible that IT related occupations will be removed from the
on-demand list on April 15, 2009. The original intent of this Alberta
program was to recruit H-1B professionals from USA. The economy of Alberta
was booming in recent 5 years because of the discovery of huge oil reserve
in the northern part of the province. Alberta needs engineers such as
Chemical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers, etc to work for
its oil industry and its oil based economy.
However, it ended up that the overwhelming majority of applicants of this
Alberta program are IT consultants, programmers and software engineers in
USA. Alberta does need some IT professionals but it for sure does not need a
lot of them."
Is this true? I dont find any info related to this on Maple International website or Alberta Immigration website.
Green.Tech
08-05 06:09 PM
I am not sure this will count as an illegal behavior. Of course, I am not a lawyer. But companies typically ask for relocation reimburesement and lawyer expenses, etc. to be paid back pro-rated, in case the employee leaves within a year or so.
Again, this is not really asking for money for labor, but just making sure that the company gets their expenses back in case employee leaves within an year.
Btw, I do not have any such agreement with my company. But I think this is standard. Unfair, maybe. Illegal? I dont know....
Good point!
For one, my employer contract (which I haven't signed yet) says that I will need to reimburse for ALL GC related fee that they have incurred on my behalf if I leave ANYTIME during my GC application is pending. I know such contracts are common (or are they?) but I am not sure if they can ask me to reimburse them for labor cert fee (which as per DOL is employers responsibility) or even for that matter any other application fee (which I understand are employers responsibility as well?). So, basically they can contract me for all the legal fee (attorney fee) but not ALL fee.
More thoughts?
Again, this is not really asking for money for labor, but just making sure that the company gets their expenses back in case employee leaves within an year.
Btw, I do not have any such agreement with my company. But I think this is standard. Unfair, maybe. Illegal? I dont know....
Good point!
For one, my employer contract (which I haven't signed yet) says that I will need to reimburse for ALL GC related fee that they have incurred on my behalf if I leave ANYTIME during my GC application is pending. I know such contracts are common (or are they?) but I am not sure if they can ask me to reimburse them for labor cert fee (which as per DOL is employers responsibility) or even for that matter any other application fee (which I understand are employers responsibility as well?). So, basically they can contract me for all the legal fee (attorney fee) but not ALL fee.
More thoughts?
BimmerFAn
06-13 01:45 PM
No there is no premium processing process for waiver applications. There seems to be no apparent order in the order they are adjudicated. Once the Department of State recommends you for a waiver you may apply for H1B change of status with the recommendation alone. If ur H1B application is filed for premium processing then the USCIS might adjudicate the waiver within 15 days as part of the h1b processing.
blizkreeg
01-26 12:44 PM
Seriously, who cares that Andhra bagged 7 ranks. How on earth is it relevant to the discussion going on here? Plus this isn't a forum for Indians only(and I'm Indian).
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
more...
Desertfox
11-09 05:33 PM
Is it possible to change this thread title to "Indian doctors win legal battle in UK"??
jonty_11
07-05 04:51 PM
Why do you think you would be denied entry in canada? You are legal to enter Canada with your PR approval. There is no question of "intent" when you are already approved for permanent residency.
and u dont have to get h1 visa appt (unless u ahve already booked it)....if u have any VISA in passport that is expired....u can use auto reval...
assuming u have a VISA (expired) and didnt jump the fence.
and u dont have to get h1 visa appt (unless u ahve already booked it)....if u have any VISA in passport that is expired....u can use auto reval...
assuming u have a VISA (expired) and didnt jump the fence.
more...
MatsP
June 7th, 2005, 02:21 AM
These are all good suggestions and translate well from my film days. I also read that, whereas in b&w the adage was expose for the shadows and develop (or print) for highlights, in digital it is the reverse - expose to preserve detail in the highlights and then use your curves in RAW to fix the shadows where you want them. So I'll have to put all that to work this week / weekend. If the flowers stay around, that is.
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. The b&w film is probably much more tolerant to overexposure than the sensor, same as colour film, you can overexpose several stops, and as long as you compensate in the printing phase. Not so with digital cameras, they can tolerate only a very mild case of overexposure. In RAW it's a little bit more tolerant than if you use JPG in the camera, but only because the most fine details in the highlight is lost when converting from internal RAW pixels to 8-bit pixels for the JPG. Also consider that the lost information is actually just the last few bits, so when multiplied up to show a decent image, you'd still get a pretty sketchy result.
I'd also like to concur with Josh about the sensitivity: the range that the sensor can accept intense light is pretty much the same for all DSLR's for the same generation. You'll just have to live with it, compensate for it and wait for the next generation of sensors that are more tolerant... ;-)
--
Mats
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. The b&w film is probably much more tolerant to overexposure than the sensor, same as colour film, you can overexpose several stops, and as long as you compensate in the printing phase. Not so with digital cameras, they can tolerate only a very mild case of overexposure. In RAW it's a little bit more tolerant than if you use JPG in the camera, but only because the most fine details in the highlight is lost when converting from internal RAW pixels to 8-bit pixels for the JPG. Also consider that the lost information is actually just the last few bits, so when multiplied up to show a decent image, you'd still get a pretty sketchy result.
I'd also like to concur with Josh about the sensitivity: the range that the sensor can accept intense light is pretty much the same for all DSLR's for the same generation. You'll just have to live with it, compensate for it and wait for the next generation of sensors that are more tolerant... ;-)
--
Mats
DDLMODES
10-09 07:47 PM
Service request ?? What is that ??
Anyway, I understand that many people are in the same situation and that makes it a bit better. I will wait... Thanks for the replies...
Its just scary that after all these years they might consider the case abandoned if you don't receive the damn FP letter. Some guys didn't even get the receipts yet. I feel for those...
P.S.: Anybody got the case closed because they missed the FP appointment ? Is there a way to reopen it ?
Thanks again guys !
Anyway, I understand that many people are in the same situation and that makes it a bit better. I will wait... Thanks for the replies...
Its just scary that after all these years they might consider the case abandoned if you don't receive the damn FP letter. Some guys didn't even get the receipts yet. I feel for those...
P.S.: Anybody got the case closed because they missed the FP appointment ? Is there a way to reopen it ?
Thanks again guys !
more...
hebron
08-16 02:50 PM
Hi Hebron,
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
You have a valid H1 with the new employer (client), so there should be nothing wrong working with the client.
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
I will get my money if i complain to DOL. But, do i have to stop working at the same client now. Will there be any problem if i continue working with the same client.
Thanks,
Srikanth
You have a valid H1 with the new employer (client), so there should be nothing wrong working with the client.
Have you or your client signed a contract with the parent company? If you have not signed a contract, there is nothing to worry. I would assume your client may have signed a contract with your parent company(old employer). If that's the case the issue is between you current employer (client) and you parent company (old employer).
You may also want to check with your attorney.
rbalaji5
11-29 07:51 PM
Gurus,
Guide me. I am planning to apply for Canada Green Card (Permanent Resident). What I am going to do is.
1) Just download the application forms from Application for Permanent Residence in Canada [IMM 0008SW] from the website and just apply without any representative
Question is
1) Do I need a representative as this is a backup to US GC.
2) I dont have any Canadian temp work visa
3) How much bank Balance I need ?
Please clarify
Guide me. I am planning to apply for Canada Green Card (Permanent Resident). What I am going to do is.
1) Just download the application forms from Application for Permanent Residence in Canada [IMM 0008SW] from the website and just apply without any representative
Question is
1) Do I need a representative as this is a backup to US GC.
2) I dont have any Canadian temp work visa
3) How much bank Balance I need ?
Please clarify
more...
sreenivas11
11-16 10:39 AM
Nov' 07 Processing times are not posted yet
john2255
07-21 08:31 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
more...
vin13
09-30 01:10 PM
Any idea what these LUDs may be which you had
LUD on 09/22, 09/23 ,09/29 and 09/30.
EB2 India Mar 2005 NSC
No idea...these were just soft LUD....the last updated date was changed online.
LUD on 09/22, 09/23 ,09/29 and 09/30.
EB2 India Mar 2005 NSC
No idea...these were just soft LUD....the last updated date was changed online.
IndiaNJ
08-20 12:11 PM
My 485 got approved on 8/8/8 , where as wife's case is still pending , my wife called the 1.800 number , they told it has been assigned to the officer , and he has to make a decision.
more...
Hermione
09-27 08:49 AM
Law abiding? I beg to differ. Application for asylum goes to court only if the petitioner spent more than one year illegally in the US.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
Berkeleybee
04-07 09:03 PM
About the appeasability of Sensenbrenner check out :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7445&postcount=168
My favorite bit is the one in where the article says about Sensenbrenner
"Senate Democrats were also afraid that a half-baked Senate measure would be ripped apart in conference by Jim Sensenbrenner, the House negotiator who in past conferences has eaten senators for breakfast and cleaned his teeth with their bones."
I very much doubt that he will be swayed by faxes. ;-)
best,
Berkeleybee
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7445&postcount=168
My favorite bit is the one in where the article says about Sensenbrenner
"Senate Democrats were also afraid that a half-baked Senate measure would be ripped apart in conference by Jim Sensenbrenner, the House negotiator who in past conferences has eaten senators for breakfast and cleaned his teeth with their bones."
I very much doubt that he will be swayed by faxes. ;-)
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
pappu
11-09 02:10 PM
Pappu,
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
Yes. It is open to everyone and is under 'Action Items for everyone' forum.
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
Yes. It is open to everyone and is under 'Action Items for everyone' forum.
pscdk
08-21 10:29 AM
Congratulations.
guesswho
06-11 03:09 PM
Sunny1000,
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
am2006
12-08 08:34 AM
Called Senator Tom Price - 770-565-4990. Was asked the Bill #.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
ajju
03-01 11:55 AM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
No comments:
Post a Comment