Canadian_Dream
01-24 05:56 PM
Government dictates the rule for granting F1 non-immigrant visa and eligibility of a school or its programs to admit students under such provisions. When a student is at the school, the school/department has full control on what are the conditions for an international student to be on a valid visa. For example, some schools enforce 9 credit requirements per semester while other requires 12 (so yes school dictates these details) or some have no such requirements such as Kaplan/Language schools etc. There are other details too like duration of completion and criteria for expulsion. In violation of any of these conditions each school can cancel F1 status based on its own rules. Government doesn't dictate on what criteria can a school expel a student and thereby voiding his/her F1 visa status.
As for intent, merely showing an intent is different from actually changing visa status. F1 with a pending AOS is a gray area for precisely the same reason. The best thing an F1 student could do is to complete the course meeting the F1 criteria of possible and/or switch to EAD by formally taking up an employment and filing I-9 which will be same as changing status explicitly.
As for previous non-immigrant status it remains so until one uses EAD regardless of what that status was. There is no ambiguity in it, that's why people obtain EAD and never use it to maintain their previous non-immigrant status. If you maintain a valid F1 status and say your I-485 is denied you are still safe because your F1 status is still valid, it didn't go away just because you showed an intent to immigrate by filing I-485. That's what I was suggesting to original poster, if for some reason you prefer to maintain non-immigrant status you should keep either F1 or H4 whichever is convenient to you.
The school policies does not determine whether someone can be on F1 status or not. Government has laid down the rules for F1 status. School cant say that one has to take so many credit hrs for that person to be on F1. The rule is that to maintain F1 status, one has to be a full time student with minimum 3 courses , thats 9 credit hrs, but the exception is the final semester where that student can have less then 9 credit hrs.
Plus since the F1 is not a dual intent visa type , when someone applies for 485 , the F1 status is forfitted. what you are mentioning about the previous non-immigrant visa status continues even after obtaining EAD and remain so until EAD is used only applies to the non-immigrant status like H1 , H4 , L1 etc which are dual intent visa types. For F1 your statement does not apply.
As for intent, merely showing an intent is different from actually changing visa status. F1 with a pending AOS is a gray area for precisely the same reason. The best thing an F1 student could do is to complete the course meeting the F1 criteria of possible and/or switch to EAD by formally taking up an employment and filing I-9 which will be same as changing status explicitly.
As for previous non-immigrant status it remains so until one uses EAD regardless of what that status was. There is no ambiguity in it, that's why people obtain EAD and never use it to maintain their previous non-immigrant status. If you maintain a valid F1 status and say your I-485 is denied you are still safe because your F1 status is still valid, it didn't go away just because you showed an intent to immigrate by filing I-485. That's what I was suggesting to original poster, if for some reason you prefer to maintain non-immigrant status you should keep either F1 or H4 whichever is convenient to you.
The school policies does not determine whether someone can be on F1 status or not. Government has laid down the rules for F1 status. School cant say that one has to take so many credit hrs for that person to be on F1. The rule is that to maintain F1 status, one has to be a full time student with minimum 3 courses , thats 9 credit hrs, but the exception is the final semester where that student can have less then 9 credit hrs.
Plus since the F1 is not a dual intent visa type , when someone applies for 485 , the F1 status is forfitted. what you are mentioning about the previous non-immigrant visa status continues even after obtaining EAD and remain so until EAD is used only applies to the non-immigrant status like H1 , H4 , L1 etc which are dual intent visa types. For F1 your statement does not apply.
wallpaper dresses love heart tattoos
ashkam
07-20 01:04 PM
Vaishu,
I have a question for you. I had lost my birth certificated and fortunately my father was visiting us so I get an affidavit signed by him. My mother is no more and my siblings are in India. Would there be a problem as I sent an affidavit in lieu of birth cert with just my father's signature? Please let me know.
Uncle or aunt's affidavit would have done as well. But you cannot send just one.
I have a question for you. I had lost my birth certificated and fortunately my father was visiting us so I get an affidavit signed by him. My mother is no more and my siblings are in India. Would there be a problem as I sent an affidavit in lieu of birth cert with just my father's signature? Please let me know.
Uncle or aunt's affidavit would have done as well. But you cannot send just one.
H1bEmployer
09-16 11:57 PM
Ok, So 32000 was our total expenditure for H1b, for all 22 of them.. My bad.
Yes - Good Lawyers Take that much ... About $1500. Lawyer Fees.. 1200 Bucks, Educations Evaluation 200 Bucks, Postage 100 Bucks.
I can get it done for $500 bucks, But Would you want your H1b to be done in Hyd/B'lore/BBy.. by some one who does not have clue ?... I don't think so.
To Chi_Shark -- Why am I not entitled for the same things as you ? You have time to post stuff here, I guess You have a 'job' as well. Hope this answers it !
The Point is not Reduction of HR Expenses. BTW, we are not as large to need a Para-Legal working in-house.
Thanks.
Yes - Good Lawyers Take that much ... About $1500. Lawyer Fees.. 1200 Bucks, Educations Evaluation 200 Bucks, Postage 100 Bucks.
I can get it done for $500 bucks, But Would you want your H1b to be done in Hyd/B'lore/BBy.. by some one who does not have clue ?... I don't think so.
To Chi_Shark -- Why am I not entitled for the same things as you ? You have time to post stuff here, I guess You have a 'job' as well. Hope this answers it !
The Point is not Reduction of HR Expenses. BTW, we are not as large to need a Para-Legal working in-house.
Thanks.
2011 love heart tattoos with wings. Small Heart Tattoos With Wings.
ash0210
08-30 04:57 PM
I was amused by..."Undocumented is someone who had documents, but lost them"...Bravo...!!
Are you now on the 'undocumented immigration' thing ? Undocumented is someone who had documents, but lost them. Called them using the correct designation; illegal aliens.
Are you now on the 'undocumented immigration' thing ? Undocumented is someone who had documents, but lost them. Called them using the correct designation; illegal aliens.
more...
msp1976
02-14 06:50 PM
You mean to say CIR will be introduced to the immigration or judiciary senate committee or introduce directly to the senate. If it is introduced directly to the senate floor that will save a lot of time, on the flip side it will become difficult to add or change provisions if it is directly introduced to the senate bypassing the senate judiciary and immigration committee
CIR is already there under consideration in the senate judiciary committee...S.9
All they have to do is to agree on the language....Which could happen in 1 day or an year.....
CIR is already there under consideration in the senate judiciary committee...S.9
All they have to do is to agree on the language....Which could happen in 1 day or an year.....
up_guy
10-06 01:16 PM
Ask him.
Very Good reply :)
Very Good reply :)
more...
glen
04-04 10:13 AM
IV Core Team, you guys are doing a great job. We will stick with you till our goals are met.
2010 Search: Slate
rcr_bulk
08-14 11:11 AM
Dear IVans,
Now that the SEP VB is out, what does this indicate in terms of
- future VBs
- visa availability in the coming months
- awareness about visa wastage
- dates becoming current for most EB categories
- light at the end of tunnel for most of us
- USCIS efficiencies
Pls share your thoughts. Thanks!
USCIS efficiencies :D : They are not efficient. People with PD in 2002,2003,2004 are still waiting and that are in 2006 getting released. Where is FIFO and efficiency in their process? No transparency in their process.
Now that the SEP VB is out, what does this indicate in terms of
- future VBs
- visa availability in the coming months
- awareness about visa wastage
- dates becoming current for most EB categories
- light at the end of tunnel for most of us
- USCIS efficiencies
Pls share your thoughts. Thanks!
USCIS efficiencies :D : They are not efficient. People with PD in 2002,2003,2004 are still waiting and that are in 2006 getting released. Where is FIFO and efficiency in their process? No transparency in their process.
more...
waiting4gc
06-14 07:02 PM
We should file 485 but lets keep our eyes on this and start action as soon as we know what is going on. Filing 485 will not gain you much if they add some amendment which nullifies EAD extention or something like this.
So lets get ready for the next round of faxes, phone calls and PLEASE CONTRIBUTE...
So lets get ready for the next round of faxes, phone calls and PLEASE CONTRIBUTE...
hair small heart tattoos with wings
.jpg "hair Heart with Wings Tattoo")
gumnam_guy
07-18 08:53 PM
Please see this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2115477102106333532&q=immigration+voice&total=149&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Makes sense now! Thanks for the link.
Gumnam
Makes sense now! Thanks for the link.
Gumnam
more...
RandyK
10-19 09:13 AM
...
hot love heart tattoos with wings.
walking_dude
11-19 05:07 PM
As per the current guidelines adjudicating officer makes the determination based on Department of Labor SOC/O*net code in the Labror Certification Application (ETA 9098) form. ( It's very critical to have a copy of LC application, before considering AC21. If you don't have it through employer, you can get a copy from DOL through FOIA request )
DOLs SOC/O*Net gives the job description for the Job code as well as "same or similar" jobs (if you search on your SOC/O*net code)
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/
Here's an example - http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/15-1031.00
This is the website IOs are supposed to be using (as per guidelines). Becoming a Sr. Software Engineer from Software Engineer shouldn't be an issue. Salary hike beyond 50% could (or could not) be a problem based on the IOs sole discretion. 50% is just a ball-park assumed by most immigration attorneys. In reality, there is no such preset limit. It's entirely upto the IOs decision.
Promotion as manager is a tricky situation, as Job description changes. IO may consider it 'same or similar', or consider it altogether different. In such cases it may be possible to prove the jobs are similar by obtaining an 'Expert Opinion Letter' from an expert in the field ( such as a Professor of Computer Science from a University).
How do Promotions impact one's existing GC application?
for example: one filed for the GC as a Software Engineer, 5 years down the road one switches to a different company in the same area/location using EAD (avoiding AC21 for now) and the salary is 30 % higher than that was mentioned on one's LC filing and the job title is sr software engineer (same or similar responsibilities, senior title). How would something like this impact one's GC application?
I also wonder what would happen to the GC application if one was to get another promotion and become a manager with even a higher salary (some job responsibilities stay the same and some new managerial responsibilites get added).
I am sure many of us would have faced this since clearly many of us have been waiting for many many years - I would really appreciate your input on this. Thanks!
DOLs SOC/O*Net gives the job description for the Job code as well as "same or similar" jobs (if you search on your SOC/O*net code)
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/
Here's an example - http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/15-1031.00
This is the website IOs are supposed to be using (as per guidelines). Becoming a Sr. Software Engineer from Software Engineer shouldn't be an issue. Salary hike beyond 50% could (or could not) be a problem based on the IOs sole discretion. 50% is just a ball-park assumed by most immigration attorneys. In reality, there is no such preset limit. It's entirely upto the IOs decision.
Promotion as manager is a tricky situation, as Job description changes. IO may consider it 'same or similar', or consider it altogether different. In such cases it may be possible to prove the jobs are similar by obtaining an 'Expert Opinion Letter' from an expert in the field ( such as a Professor of Computer Science from a University).
How do Promotions impact one's existing GC application?
for example: one filed for the GC as a Software Engineer, 5 years down the road one switches to a different company in the same area/location using EAD (avoiding AC21 for now) and the salary is 30 % higher than that was mentioned on one's LC filing and the job title is sr software engineer (same or similar responsibilities, senior title). How would something like this impact one's GC application?
I also wonder what would happen to the GC application if one was to get another promotion and become a manager with even a higher salary (some job responsibilities stay the same and some new managerial responsibilites get added).
I am sure many of us would have faced this since clearly many of us have been waiting for many many years - I would really appreciate your input on this. Thanks!
more...
house love tattoos
dvb
10-25 03:21 PM
Just got my I-94 updated with the correct dates at the local airport - the CBP officer was very courteous and immediately knew what was to be done.
tattoo Rose Heart Tattoos;
saimrathi
07-03 10:24 AM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAFmSYY6uE
Maybe Google wants to lend an ear to the GC applicants plight
Maybe Google wants to lend an ear to the GC applicants plight
more...
pictures love heart tattoos with wings.
kshitijnt
01-25 03:12 PM
I understand that I-140 petition is violation of F1. Is this correct? If yes, why not reject I-140?
No According to my lawyer I-140 is employers petition. I-485 is your petition. You have not demonstrated immigrant intent if your employer files I-140.
No According to my lawyer I-140 is employers petition. I-485 is your petition. You have not demonstrated immigrant intent if your employer files I-140.
dresses Search: Gray
fromnaija
05-06 04:47 PM
My son was able to get in-state tuition at Arizona State University after we filed an appeal. The new rule allows those who have filed I-485 to get in-state tuition.
http://students.asu.edu/files/Visa%20Types%20and%20Residency%20Eligibility.pdf
http://students.asu.edu/files/Visa%20Types%20and%20Residency%20Eligibility.pdf
more...
makeup love heart tattoos with wings. Lavender love heart devil
retropain
08-31 09:04 AM
if only we knew about this program in advance, we could've called. :mad:
girlfriend love heart tattoos with wings.
perm
12-14 09:52 AM
Registering myself
hairstyles Love Heart Tattoo Design For
leo2606
08-14 12:10 AM
What???? without checks cashed you got Receipt?
Are you sure? Did you put your checks or attorney used his?
my application reached NSC at 7:55am on July 2nd and I got my physical receipt notice today, mine was signed for by R Williams. checks didnt get cashed yet.
Are you sure? Did you put your checks or attorney used his?
my application reached NSC at 7:55am on July 2nd and I got my physical receipt notice today, mine was signed for by R Williams. checks didnt get cashed yet.
optimystic
04-06 01:48 AM
Thanks to everybody who took time to share their opinions here.
Yup, there's some good information here.
Yup, there's some good information here.
Macaca
03-07 08:24 PM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle. Note: Authors are immigration lawyers.
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 isthe party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing,9 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 isthe party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing,9 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment