kshitijnt
07-18 01:03 AM
I have to apply for my wife as my derivative of 485. My 485 was approved on July 8th 2010. Below is the timeline
July 1st - Applied Wife's 485
July 8th - My 485 was approved
July 13th - Wife's 485 Denied due to outdated forms
July 14th - My H1, Wife's H4 and I-94 Expired
July 19th - Planning on sending a new 485 application for spouse
I'm mainly concerned about two things
1. Is she out of status for 5 days from July 14th to 19th
2. Can I still apply her as a derivative, as my 485 is already approved.
Thank you,
Things will work out. Dont worry. You have to ACT QUICKLY though. Since your marriage was before GC was approved for you, you can do following to join option as well :)
July 1st - Applied Wife's 485
July 8th - My 485 was approved
July 13th - Wife's 485 Denied due to outdated forms
July 14th - My H1, Wife's H4 and I-94 Expired
July 19th - Planning on sending a new 485 application for spouse
I'm mainly concerned about two things
1. Is she out of status for 5 days from July 14th to 19th
2. Can I still apply her as a derivative, as my 485 is already approved.
Thank you,
Things will work out. Dont worry. You have to ACT QUICKLY though. Since your marriage was before GC was approved for you, you can do following to join option as well :)
wallpaper modeling underwear. Kate
number30
09-27 03:40 PM
My Priority date is Jun 2006 and applied in EB3 category.
Are you sure it is an approval?
Are you sure it is an approval?
gchope2k6
03-17 07:25 PM
Thank you guys for all the replies ! I will let you know what happens !
2011 kate middleton underwear model
diptam
07-09 01:23 PM
Respected Sir,
I feel compelled to say that we the struggling immigrants from India
do not get much help from Americans whose roots are from SouthAsia/India.
There may be few exceptions - but the majority is kind of neutral.
Look at the Latino peoples - check out how much support they gets from Latino-Americans. Without that we can't be on Front page .
I'm not pessismistic but a its a grim reality.
Those southasian americans dont forget to say "I love my India" for various financial/personal gains but never ever mistakes saying "I love indians also"
Thanks
Yes and we have a tough tough task here - don't be surprised if they come up with wiredest ways to punish legal high skilled as days go by - we can see more frustration among those legal immigrants coming to US.
What we can do
MAAKE IT AS VISIBLE AS POSSIBLE
I feel compelled to say that we the struggling immigrants from India
do not get much help from Americans whose roots are from SouthAsia/India.
There may be few exceptions - but the majority is kind of neutral.
Look at the Latino peoples - check out how much support they gets from Latino-Americans. Without that we can't be on Front page .
I'm not pessismistic but a its a grim reality.
Those southasian americans dont forget to say "I love my India" for various financial/personal gains but never ever mistakes saying "I love indians also"
Thanks
Yes and we have a tough tough task here - don't be surprised if they come up with wiredest ways to punish legal high skilled as days go by - we can see more frustration among those legal immigrants coming to US.
What we can do
MAAKE IT AS VISIBLE AS POSSIBLE
more...
nareshg
12-15 03:31 PM
I had filed for my 485 during the July 2007 time frame .
PD - July 2006.
I got my FP notice (Code 3) and got the FP notice stamped in FEB 2008
The stamp reads
Biometrics Processing Stamp
ASC Side Code: __________XTE<location>
Biometrics QA Review by ________ (officer's signature)
Tenprints QA Reivew (officer's signature)
Does this mean that I have security clearance ?
Basically, what does the stamping mean ?
Thanks in Advance !!
PD - July 2006.
I got my FP notice (Code 3) and got the FP notice stamped in FEB 2008
The stamp reads
Biometrics Processing Stamp
ASC Side Code: __________XTE<location>
Biometrics QA Review by ________ (officer's signature)
Tenprints QA Reivew (officer's signature)
Does this mean that I have security clearance ?
Basically, what does the stamping mean ?
Thanks in Advance !!
logiclife
09-25 12:07 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
more...
indyanguy
01-28 05:27 PM
Check out Greg Siskind's blog. He has been posting information about successful immigrants on a daily basis for the last year or so..
2010 kate middleton modelling underwear kate. kate middleton modeling
insbaby
08-18 10:23 PM
I applied for H1 extension in June'07. I got RFE on I94 first & then one more on my consulting company. Both were responded on time.. Finally, I got a denial notice on my H1 recently stating that my education background is not Computer Science related although i hold a Bachelor Degree in Computer Science. Am very upset after hearing this.
I have few questions for the experts here.
1. Is it possible for me now to apply for new H1 thru some other company?
2. Can i re-appeal the decision and stay here legally?
3. Are there any good attorneys that can give me good advice for me to take the next step?
Please let me know.. This is urgent for me right now.
Thank you all.
Give your full educational background, that may help people to get some ideas. B.S Computer Science 3 years or 4 years.
What made USCIS think that your educational background is not Computer Science? any idea.
I have few questions for the experts here.
1. Is it possible for me now to apply for new H1 thru some other company?
2. Can i re-appeal the decision and stay here legally?
3. Are there any good attorneys that can give me good advice for me to take the next step?
Please let me know.. This is urgent for me right now.
Thank you all.
Give your full educational background, that may help people to get some ideas. B.S Computer Science 3 years or 4 years.
What made USCIS think that your educational background is not Computer Science? any idea.
more...
pbuckeye
04-29 09:58 AM
Thanks IV team.
Does IV know if Schumer is getting any traction after meeting with other republican lawmakers? Lugar indicated previously that he is interested in the EB part.
Does IV know if Schumer is getting any traction after meeting with other republican lawmakers? Lugar indicated previously that he is interested in the EB part.
hair kate middleton modelling underwear kate. kate middleton modelling
Ramba
05-14 04:27 PM
Guys,
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
This may be a valid suspiecion, we may not ruled out ...
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
This may be a valid suspiecion, we may not ruled out ...
more...
nhfirefighter13
January 17th, 2005, 06:45 AM
I like 2,3,and 4. Good job, Anders!
hot kate middleton modelling underwear kate. kate middleton modelling
chanukya
07-17 05:48 PM
Check this out.
http://www.murthy.com/uscis_update.pdf
http://www.murthy.com/uscis_update.pdf
more...
house kate middleton modelling underwear kate. kate middleton underwear model.
Law Loving Alien
10-25 12:00 PM
Gurus,
USCIS is suppose to give decision in 15 business after filling I140 in premium processing ( or converting existing I140 application to premium processing).
I have seen several person mentioning that they not only got their I140 decision but they got their I-485 expedited too after converting I140 to premium processing ? Is this true...... My I140/I485 was filled at NSC in June 2006...and I have not recieved any decision for my I140 yet....Is it worthwhile to convert my I140 to premium processing ... I am sure I will get my I140 decision in 15 business days but will it expediete my I485 case too after position decision of I140.... Please provide your thoughts...
USCIS is suppose to give decision in 15 business after filling I140 in premium processing ( or converting existing I140 application to premium processing).
I have seen several person mentioning that they not only got their I140 decision but they got their I-485 expedited too after converting I140 to premium processing ? Is this true...... My I140/I485 was filled at NSC in June 2006...and I have not recieved any decision for my I140 yet....Is it worthwhile to convert my I140 to premium processing ... I am sure I will get my I140 decision in 15 business days but will it expediete my I485 case too after position decision of I140.... Please provide your thoughts...
tattoo kate middleton modelling underwear kate. kate middleton modeling prince
gccovet
06-19 09:42 AM
Hi everyone:
I have an unusual situation concerning my friend's mother. When he got his green card (about 10 years ago) he filed the green card application for his mother that lived (and still lives) abroad, hoping to alleviate the woes of her getting a short-term traveller's visa every time she traveled to see him.
She received her green card about 4 years ago, but she doesn't want to live in the US for more than a month. Unfortunately it also gets more and more expensive for them to make her travel to US every year, thus pushing her into a violation of her Permanent Resident status and of the recurring Re-entry Permits (that now shrank to a single year).
My friend now wants to suggest his mother to relinquish (i.e. give up) her permanent status but his fear is that once done she will not be able to return back to US to visit him. (He has already become a citizen and is not planning to return to his home country.)
Does anyone here have any suggestions of what could happen if she gives up her permanent resident status?
Cousin went through same situation recently (early 2008). Parents "surrendered" their GC's, to Mumbai consulate general office, and simultaneously applied (same day same time while in the consulate) for Visitor VISA (they were advised about the procedure by Mumbai consulate office via phone, they had called them couple of months before doing this). Visitor VISA was granted without any questions asked.
My parents are thinking of doing the same very soon.
GCCovet
I have an unusual situation concerning my friend's mother. When he got his green card (about 10 years ago) he filed the green card application for his mother that lived (and still lives) abroad, hoping to alleviate the woes of her getting a short-term traveller's visa every time she traveled to see him.
She received her green card about 4 years ago, but she doesn't want to live in the US for more than a month. Unfortunately it also gets more and more expensive for them to make her travel to US every year, thus pushing her into a violation of her Permanent Resident status and of the recurring Re-entry Permits (that now shrank to a single year).
My friend now wants to suggest his mother to relinquish (i.e. give up) her permanent status but his fear is that once done she will not be able to return back to US to visit him. (He has already become a citizen and is not planning to return to his home country.)
Does anyone here have any suggestions of what could happen if she gives up her permanent resident status?
Cousin went through same situation recently (early 2008). Parents "surrendered" their GC's, to Mumbai consulate general office, and simultaneously applied (same day same time while in the consulate) for Visitor VISA (they were advised about the procedure by Mumbai consulate office via phone, they had called them couple of months before doing this). Visitor VISA was granted without any questions asked.
My parents are thinking of doing the same very soon.
GCCovet
more...
pictures kate middleton modeling
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.
dresses kate middleton modelling underwear kate. kate middleton modelling
ImmiLosers
09-30 03:24 PM
How did you guys find out your Name Check Status. Do we have to call USCIS to check for this or is there any other way to confirm this.
thanks,
Infopass is one way (only if you are lucky)
thanks,
Infopass is one way (only if you are lucky)
more...
makeup kate middleton modelling
divakarr
09-05 08:16 AM
same here. file AP in August and got receipt. I-485 filed on July 2 and no receipt so far. called USCIS and could not find receipt number for 485.
girlfriend kate middleton underwear model
chanduv23
03-15 06:26 PM
Thats is the law. They have to provide no matter how much blood suckers they are. Of course it depends on how you make them realize that.
I was offered one when i was in that situation way back in 99.
Its as per law. But in practice, we do not see it happening much. maybe I am not aware. Anyway getting a flight ticket back to home country is not an issue for a great discussion :)
I was offered one when i was in that situation way back in 99.
Its as per law. But in practice, we do not see it happening much. maybe I am not aware. Anyway getting a flight ticket back to home country is not an issue for a great discussion :)
hairstyles kate middleton modelling underwear kate. kate middleton underwear model kate
redddiv
07-10 06:44 AM
Sent on July 6th. Reached on July 9
gomirage
05-28 05:19 PM
If you will work for a Canadian Company within US, then you need a US work visa (H-1B for example). However, in this process you will not satisfy the residency requirements for your Canadian PR. Please note that you need to live in Canada for at least 2 out of 5 year period to maintain the PR.
Actually, if you work for a Canadian company the time spent outside Canada will count as if you were in Canada. So, you will still be able to meet the 2/5 requirement. But you need to check what are the conditions, I know that you can't just create your own company and stay there for example. Check the requirements.
On the US side, what visa will you be working on ? H1B ? If you like to stay in US, why not gained Canadian citizenship and work on TN, which is 3 years now (maybe more in the future) and very easy ?
Actually, if you work for a Canadian company the time spent outside Canada will count as if you were in Canada. So, you will still be able to meet the 2/5 requirement. But you need to check what are the conditions, I know that you can't just create your own company and stay there for example. Check the requirements.
On the US side, what visa will you be working on ? H1B ? If you like to stay in US, why not gained Canadian citizenship and work on TN, which is 3 years now (maybe more in the future) and very easy ?
REQUIRE_GC
10-14 06:35 PM
Hi:
I filed on July 23, I-140 and 485 concurrent.
I got EAD on 5th Oct.
I had fingerpring done on OCT12.
Whne Fingerprinting was done, with 2 of my fingers, it gave message
Warning !!!!!!!! Matched (with RED color) . Rest all fingers, it displayed passed with Green color.
Does it mean it matches with some kind of FBI database and Do I need to worry about it?
Please help gurus. I have lost my sleep.
Thanks
I filed on July 23, I-140 and 485 concurrent.
I got EAD on 5th Oct.
I had fingerpring done on OCT12.
Whne Fingerprinting was done, with 2 of my fingers, it gave message
Warning !!!!!!!! Matched (with RED color) . Rest all fingers, it displayed passed with Green color.
Does it mean it matches with some kind of FBI database and Do I need to worry about it?
Please help gurus. I have lost my sleep.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment