NELLAIKUMAR
02-17 11:50 AM
Nayekal, Thanks for your response.
What I meant to say is that my H1 is expiring on Sep 30th 2009 and therefore the earliest date I can apply for extension is April 1st. That's why I asked the question whether I can wait until April 1st for COS from H1 to H4 for my wife even though my wife's employment is ending on March 13th.
Also, is it necessary to have the proof of I-539 receipt by March 13th or few weeks difference is ok? Can you please let me know your experience in this matter.
Thanks...
What I meant to say is that my H1 is expiring on Sep 30th 2009 and therefore the earliest date I can apply for extension is April 1st. That's why I asked the question whether I can wait until April 1st for COS from H1 to H4 for my wife even though my wife's employment is ending on March 13th.
Also, is it necessary to have the proof of I-539 receipt by March 13th or few weeks difference is ok? Can you please let me know your experience in this matter.
Thanks...
ChainReaction
06-18 12:41 PM
yes you can. As per AC 21 once you have counted towards h1b number in last 6 year you are not counted again. So assuming your original h1 wasn't though non profit orgainzation, you can apply for new h1. If you have your I 140 approved you get 3 years h1. PM me if you need more info. I have done it.
and btw, h1b premium processing takes 15 days, so don't panic.
I asked my lawyer somewhat similar question regarding my wife. The question i asked was what if i stay on H1b and she uses her EAD and for some reason my 485 get rejected can she move back to H4 status?
The lawyer said as long as the I-94 is valid on her H4 she can else she will have to leave the country and apply at her home country . He did also mentioned something regarding time is counted as being out of status from the day a person uses EAD, don't remember whether the clock starts ticking passed the I-94 validity period or otherwise.
and btw, h1b premium processing takes 15 days, so don't panic.
I asked my lawyer somewhat similar question regarding my wife. The question i asked was what if i stay on H1b and she uses her EAD and for some reason my 485 get rejected can she move back to H4 status?
The lawyer said as long as the I-94 is valid on her H4 she can else she will have to leave the country and apply at her home country . He did also mentioned something regarding time is counted as being out of status from the day a person uses EAD, don't remember whether the clock starts ticking passed the I-94 validity period or otherwise.
sparky_jones
04-25 05:59 PM
Don't sweat it. I too overlooked this field during my last e-filing in 2008. The date of last arrival field is easy to miss, since it is embedded right under a set of "previous EAD" fields, some of which you would likely leave blank if you don't have too many previous EADs. I simply included this data item on a separate piece of paper with my supporting documentation. I didn't face any delays in my EAD approval...it was approved in a few weeks.
I don't think this is any cause for concern.
I guess USCIS IT department does not have the budget to hire a usability expert to review their e-filing forms. Some of those forms look like "hello world" projects. :)
This is my second renewal, first time did it online it was smooth! This time the online process seemed little different, they were asking for few info at a time and we got to click the continue button...I was just doing fine and was waiting that at some point it would show the complete application for me to review, but I got to the last page and said something like "Submit" or "Finish" and I did ...everything was ok got the confirmation....OOPS, left the date of last arrival blank! Had put the Port of arrival correct, but left the date blank!
How is this going to affect my EAD, anyone had similar experience ? In the confirmation, it had instructions that I will get notice for finger printing appt and other documents to be sent.
Really pissed off! Very bad mood today!
Can't the system check for missing information! Even mom & pop online services check for all information before accepting! Anyways, no excuse for me , I should have been careful!
Anyone who got a RFE for missing to information and how long it took after responding to the RFE, Please share your experiences!
I don't think this is any cause for concern.
I guess USCIS IT department does not have the budget to hire a usability expert to review their e-filing forms. Some of those forms look like "hello world" projects. :)
This is my second renewal, first time did it online it was smooth! This time the online process seemed little different, they were asking for few info at a time and we got to click the continue button...I was just doing fine and was waiting that at some point it would show the complete application for me to review, but I got to the last page and said something like "Submit" or "Finish" and I did ...everything was ok got the confirmation....OOPS, left the date of last arrival blank! Had put the Port of arrival correct, but left the date blank!
How is this going to affect my EAD, anyone had similar experience ? In the confirmation, it had instructions that I will get notice for finger printing appt and other documents to be sent.
Really pissed off! Very bad mood today!
Can't the system check for missing information! Even mom & pop online services check for all information before accepting! Anyways, no excuse for me , I should have been careful!
Anyone who got a RFE for missing to information and how long it took after responding to the RFE, Please share your experiences!
sweet_jungle
09-16 04:11 PM
Bump
I am a July 2 filer. I got 485 receipt notice from California Service Center with receipt date of july 2. Today, in mail, I got another notice called transfer notice, which states that my case has been transferred to Nebraska. The receipt date on the transfer notice is Sep 5. Is it nromal to have such diferent receipt dates? Will USCIS process by receipt date on receipt notice or on transfer notice?
I am a July 2 filer. I got 485 receipt notice from California Service Center with receipt date of july 2. Today, in mail, I got another notice called transfer notice, which states that my case has been transferred to Nebraska. The receipt date on the transfer notice is Sep 5. Is it nromal to have such diferent receipt dates? Will USCIS process by receipt date on receipt notice or on transfer notice?
more...
baburob2
05-30 08:16 PM
make sure you do the transfer to H1B to Company B before Company A revokes the I-140 to be on the safer side and get the 3 year extension. Then you could transfer the old PD on to your new GC you start with company B.
dealsnet
01-08 09:36 PM
No one can file I-485 without the PD for that person is current in the visa bulletin.
You can replace your previous wife with a new wife at home, not with USCIS. !!!!!!!!!
Hi,
Just wanted to know how should one modify the immigration petition again after divorce and second marriage. Can the second wife name be added to 485 immediately or wait for the PD to become current? And how about EAD?
Thanks
You can replace your previous wife with a new wife at home, not with USCIS. !!!!!!!!!
Hi,
Just wanted to know how should one modify the immigration petition again after divorce and second marriage. Can the second wife name be added to 485 immediately or wait for the PD to become current? And how about EAD?
Thanks
more...
vishal
04-15 02:30 PM
hi all,
since it is taking so long for the namechecks to get cleared. what usually happens after we do FP. how is the process initiated.
any response is appreciated
since it is taking so long for the namechecks to get cleared. what usually happens after we do FP. how is the process initiated.
any response is appreciated
jfredr
07-26 01:49 PM
my colleague whose 485 was mailed on june 27th had his checked cleared yesterday.
more...
va_dude
03-25 02:32 PM
so what's the problem here.
Just work with your attorney and employer who filed your 140 to send them the info/letter they need with details on which client you worked for and when, etc.
Just work with your attorney and employer who filed your 140 to send them the info/letter they need with details on which client you worked for and when, etc.
Steven-T
February 12th, 2004, 09:55 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it would be sheer genius if Kodak was to license the Canon mount? Imagine if they offered both Nikon and Canon mounts (even better - an interchangeable mount plate so you could have it both ways on one body)!
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
And Fujifilm too. But I think its a "business decision" somehow, and I don't expect it will happen, when Canon is so dominant, for that market segment concerned. At least not now, not soon. I wish I am wrong.
Steven
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
And Fujifilm too. But I think its a "business decision" somehow, and I don't expect it will happen, when Canon is so dominant, for that market segment concerned. At least not now, not soon. I wish I am wrong.
Steven
more...
MatsP
January 28th, 2008, 05:06 PM
I don't know how to explain this in any sensible way without sounding like a nitpicking pedand (but I can't just "not say it"), but my point about the "DOF is always the same for the same framing", was particularly to point out that wide-angle lenses are good for close-to-subject-and-crop, but it does NOT magically give you different focusing or DOF behaviour - it's still the same for the same framing of the subject.
Depending on the layout of the house, using a longer focal range can actually help - there is less rotation of the camera, and that means less change in distance to the subject, meaning that it's easier to get the focus - but that assumes large open areas in the house, which doesn't work well in some situations (my house has no place where you can see much more than about 15 feet in a straight line). It has an added advantage of "you stand further away, so you don't disturb the children quite so much".
--
Mats
Depending on the layout of the house, using a longer focal range can actually help - there is less rotation of the camera, and that means less change in distance to the subject, meaning that it's easier to get the focus - but that assumes large open areas in the house, which doesn't work well in some situations (my house has no place where you can see much more than about 15 feet in a straight line). It has an added advantage of "you stand further away, so you don't disturb the children quite so much".
--
Mats
ita
07-25 01:21 PM
I changed jobs recently and retained my attorney from previous employer even though I had the option of using the current employer's attorney for free. The reason being
1. I had good relationship with my previous attorney.
2. I never know when my dates (EB-I 06/03) will be current and in case of a layoff or future job change, we need to update USCIS with the new attorney information which I thought will raise a few eyebrows and was not comfortable with this option.
3. Even though you change attorney and send the updated details to USCIS, chances are that they don't update the system and any RFE or information may still get sent to the original attorney that filed your I-485.
Note, that I am not suggesting you one way or the other, these are the reasons for making my decision, hopefully this will help you make an informed decision.
Thanks.
I like your reasons.I have good realations with my employer.
My attornety is through my company though I paid her.
I'm still concerned with this 'what if my employer and through him my attorney do something that might harm my case if I move to another company'( as my old company will not have me and that will make their business a difference)
And it's attorney who will have to let me know if there is any RFE in future.
For the same fear I'm not even asking my attorney any AC21 related doubts that I have as she may go to my employer , tell him about it and that would be like giving him reason to believe I'm moving out even before I made any move.
If I changed the attorney then there is other set of reasons to be concerned about.
I would really appreciate it if any one could suggest something on this dilemma that I'm going through (having gone through this themselves or otherwise).
Thank you.
1. I had good relationship with my previous attorney.
2. I never know when my dates (EB-I 06/03) will be current and in case of a layoff or future job change, we need to update USCIS with the new attorney information which I thought will raise a few eyebrows and was not comfortable with this option.
3. Even though you change attorney and send the updated details to USCIS, chances are that they don't update the system and any RFE or information may still get sent to the original attorney that filed your I-485.
Note, that I am not suggesting you one way or the other, these are the reasons for making my decision, hopefully this will help you make an informed decision.
Thanks.
I like your reasons.I have good realations with my employer.
My attornety is through my company though I paid her.
I'm still concerned with this 'what if my employer and through him my attorney do something that might harm my case if I move to another company'( as my old company will not have me and that will make their business a difference)
And it's attorney who will have to let me know if there is any RFE in future.
For the same fear I'm not even asking my attorney any AC21 related doubts that I have as she may go to my employer , tell him about it and that would be like giving him reason to believe I'm moving out even before I made any move.
If I changed the attorney then there is other set of reasons to be concerned about.
I would really appreciate it if any one could suggest something on this dilemma that I'm going through (having gone through this themselves or otherwise).
Thank you.
more...
deafTunes123
04-15 10:39 AM
Man....9 loong years....thats too long in this era for one employer. Congratulations on your GC Approval. I can clearly see the relief.
I got my approval y'day from TSC. This marks the end of GC journey. Been with same employer since Aug 1999 ( 9 Long years...........).
I got my approval y'day from TSC. This marks the end of GC journey. Been with same employer since Aug 1999 ( 9 Long years...........).
gcdreamer05
11-20 01:37 PM
Great useful service to the immigration folks
more...
googlegc
04-07 09:58 AM
1. YES
2. NO
3. YES
4. NO
I am planning to change jobs using the EAD / AC-21 in the next couple of months. To start off the process I wanted to get all the approval notices from the lawyer so that I have all the documents in place before I change jobs.
My employer uses a popular law firm to handle the immigration filing etc. I sent an email to the lawyer asking them to send me a copy of the I-140 approval notice.The lawyer responded that according to my company's internal policy they will not provide me a copy of the I-140 approval notice.
I would like to know the following -
1) Has someone else also faced a similar issue ?
2) If so , is there a way to get them to send me a copy of th 140 approval notice
3) Does the employer by law have the authority to restrict the distribution of the 140 approval notice
4) Do I need the 140 approval notice in order to use EAD/AC-21 to change jobs ?
Thanks
2. NO
3. YES
4. NO
I am planning to change jobs using the EAD / AC-21 in the next couple of months. To start off the process I wanted to get all the approval notices from the lawyer so that I have all the documents in place before I change jobs.
My employer uses a popular law firm to handle the immigration filing etc. I sent an email to the lawyer asking them to send me a copy of the I-140 approval notice.The lawyer responded that according to my company's internal policy they will not provide me a copy of the I-140 approval notice.
I would like to know the following -
1) Has someone else also faced a similar issue ?
2) If so , is there a way to get them to send me a copy of th 140 approval notice
3) Does the employer by law have the authority to restrict the distribution of the 140 approval notice
4) Do I need the 140 approval notice in order to use EAD/AC-21 to change jobs ?
Thanks
Sakthisagar
12-01 02:44 PM
Issues facing the 2010 lame-duck session of Congress - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/lameduck/index.html)
1. Tax cuts
The most pressing issue in the lame-duck Congress sounds, at first glance, like a typo.
The federal government spends more money than it takes in. The two parties both agree that this is bad. Here�s what they can�t agree on: How much less should the government take in, in the years to come?
The debate is about income tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, which are due to expire Dec. 31. If that happens, a single person earning $46,000 a year might see his or her taxes jump $400, according to the nonprofit Tax Policy Center. A married couple earning a total of $440,000, on the other hand, might see an increase of $20,000.
Most Democrats want to extend tax cuts covering up to the first $250,000 that a family earns in a year. Republican leaders want to keep all the tax cuts, including those on income above $250,000. In a recession, they say, it doesn�t make sense to cut anyone�s taxes.
Congress and the president could agree to a temporary truce, extending all the tax cuts for a few years only. Or, as some Democrats have suggested recently, they could agree to keep tax cuts on incomes less than $1 million.
2. The New START treaty
The point of this U.S.-Russia treaty, signed but not yet ratified, is to continue the slow nuclear stand-down that has followed the Cold War. The two nations would agree to cut deployed long-range nuclear weapons by up to 30 percent and to allow each other to inspect the remaining stockpiles.
The prevention of nuclear armageddon still enjoys wide support on Capitol Hill.
But this treaty does not.
New START must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. That was no problem for two past treaties: the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, and the �Moscow Treaty,� signed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
But now, Sen. John Kyl (Ariz.), the chamber�s second-ranking Republican, has held up the treaty�s passage. Kyl has said he wants more guarantees that the government will properly maintain the nuclear weapons that remain. He also thinks that the lame-duck session is too short a time to consider the issue.
The White House is now trying to work around Kyl to win over nine other Republican. If it can�t, there will be more Republicans � and perhaps more support for denying Obama a foreign policy win � in January.
3. �Don�t ask, don�t tell�
This 17-year-old rule, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military, has been under attack all year. This fall, a federal judge ruled the ban unconstitutional and ordered it scrapped. A higher court reinstated the ban while it considers the matter on appeal.
And on Tuesday, a Pentagon report concluded that ending the ban would pose a low risk to military readiness. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the repeal of the rule �should be done.�
But �don�t ask, don�t tell� isn�t dead yet and could outlive the lame-duck session.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) could bring it up for a vote on the floor this month. But the ascendant GOP is in no mood to cooperate. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he�s still worried about the effect on morale, and other Republican leaders say the whole issue is a distraction from their top priority � job creation.
4. The �Continuing resolution�
A continuing resolution (known in Hill jargon as a �CR�) is a bill that�s introduced when Congress can�t agree on a full budget for the federal government.
Instead, it passes a bill to temporarily �continue� funding federal agencies at their present rates.
Congress must pass a new continuing resolution before Friday. If it doesn�t, the government will shut down � as it did in 1995 during a budget showdown between President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans.
The sticking point is Republican demands to shrink federal spending back to 2008 levels. But a shutdown still seems unlikely; while a lot of voters want smaller government, very few seem to want no government.
Signs from the Hill indicate legislators will beat Friday�s deadline and pass a resolution good for another few weeks, at least.
5. Unemployment benefits
Another looming deadline. On Tuesday, emergency unemployment insurance � he federal checks given to the jobless � expired. If nothing is done to extend the benefits, advocates say as many as 3 million people will see their checks cut off by the end of January.
Some Republicans have voiced concerns about the high cost of these benefits. In the middle of last month, the House failed to approve a plan to extend them, with all but 11 Democrats voting for it and all but 21 Republicans voting against it.
6. Childhood nutrition
On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders plan to call a vote that could be a measure of the muscle they�ve got left. At issue: a bill that would feed schoolchildren better food.
If they can�t win on that, it could be a long month.
The bill is intended to give more poor children access to subsidized meals at school. It also would improve the quality of those meals and give more federal money to school districts that comply with higher nutrition standards.
�Kids that have food insecurity learn at a slower rate than their peers,� House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. �Food insecurity� is Washington-speak for �hunger.�
The bill passed the Senate unanimously. But it will face some Republican opposition in the House from members who say it will impose more costs on struggling school systems.
7. The DREAM Act
This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants who came to this country as children. If they go to college or join the military as adults, it would give them a chance to obtain legal residency.
As attitudes toward illegal immigrants have hardened, support for the bill has collapsed among Republicans and many Democrats. To them, it looks like a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
On Tuesday, Reid could promise only a �test vote� on the issue: he would bring the issue to the Senate floor, and take his chances. The implicit message was that Reid might lose � but lose in a way that showed Hispanic voters he was trying.
1. Tax cuts
The most pressing issue in the lame-duck Congress sounds, at first glance, like a typo.
The federal government spends more money than it takes in. The two parties both agree that this is bad. Here�s what they can�t agree on: How much less should the government take in, in the years to come?
The debate is about income tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, which are due to expire Dec. 31. If that happens, a single person earning $46,000 a year might see his or her taxes jump $400, according to the nonprofit Tax Policy Center. A married couple earning a total of $440,000, on the other hand, might see an increase of $20,000.
Most Democrats want to extend tax cuts covering up to the first $250,000 that a family earns in a year. Republican leaders want to keep all the tax cuts, including those on income above $250,000. In a recession, they say, it doesn�t make sense to cut anyone�s taxes.
Congress and the president could agree to a temporary truce, extending all the tax cuts for a few years only. Or, as some Democrats have suggested recently, they could agree to keep tax cuts on incomes less than $1 million.
2. The New START treaty
The point of this U.S.-Russia treaty, signed but not yet ratified, is to continue the slow nuclear stand-down that has followed the Cold War. The two nations would agree to cut deployed long-range nuclear weapons by up to 30 percent and to allow each other to inspect the remaining stockpiles.
The prevention of nuclear armageddon still enjoys wide support on Capitol Hill.
But this treaty does not.
New START must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. That was no problem for two past treaties: the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, and the �Moscow Treaty,� signed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
But now, Sen. John Kyl (Ariz.), the chamber�s second-ranking Republican, has held up the treaty�s passage. Kyl has said he wants more guarantees that the government will properly maintain the nuclear weapons that remain. He also thinks that the lame-duck session is too short a time to consider the issue.
The White House is now trying to work around Kyl to win over nine other Republican. If it can�t, there will be more Republicans � and perhaps more support for denying Obama a foreign policy win � in January.
3. �Don�t ask, don�t tell�
This 17-year-old rule, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military, has been under attack all year. This fall, a federal judge ruled the ban unconstitutional and ordered it scrapped. A higher court reinstated the ban while it considers the matter on appeal.
And on Tuesday, a Pentagon report concluded that ending the ban would pose a low risk to military readiness. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the repeal of the rule �should be done.�
But �don�t ask, don�t tell� isn�t dead yet and could outlive the lame-duck session.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) could bring it up for a vote on the floor this month. But the ascendant GOP is in no mood to cooperate. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he�s still worried about the effect on morale, and other Republican leaders say the whole issue is a distraction from their top priority � job creation.
4. The �Continuing resolution�
A continuing resolution (known in Hill jargon as a �CR�) is a bill that�s introduced when Congress can�t agree on a full budget for the federal government.
Instead, it passes a bill to temporarily �continue� funding federal agencies at their present rates.
Congress must pass a new continuing resolution before Friday. If it doesn�t, the government will shut down � as it did in 1995 during a budget showdown between President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans.
The sticking point is Republican demands to shrink federal spending back to 2008 levels. But a shutdown still seems unlikely; while a lot of voters want smaller government, very few seem to want no government.
Signs from the Hill indicate legislators will beat Friday�s deadline and pass a resolution good for another few weeks, at least.
5. Unemployment benefits
Another looming deadline. On Tuesday, emergency unemployment insurance � he federal checks given to the jobless � expired. If nothing is done to extend the benefits, advocates say as many as 3 million people will see their checks cut off by the end of January.
Some Republicans have voiced concerns about the high cost of these benefits. In the middle of last month, the House failed to approve a plan to extend them, with all but 11 Democrats voting for it and all but 21 Republicans voting against it.
6. Childhood nutrition
On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders plan to call a vote that could be a measure of the muscle they�ve got left. At issue: a bill that would feed schoolchildren better food.
If they can�t win on that, it could be a long month.
The bill is intended to give more poor children access to subsidized meals at school. It also would improve the quality of those meals and give more federal money to school districts that comply with higher nutrition standards.
�Kids that have food insecurity learn at a slower rate than their peers,� House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. �Food insecurity� is Washington-speak for �hunger.�
The bill passed the Senate unanimously. But it will face some Republican opposition in the House from members who say it will impose more costs on struggling school systems.
7. The DREAM Act
This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants who came to this country as children. If they go to college or join the military as adults, it would give them a chance to obtain legal residency.
As attitudes toward illegal immigrants have hardened, support for the bill has collapsed among Republicans and many Democrats. To them, it looks like a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
On Tuesday, Reid could promise only a �test vote� on the issue: he would bring the issue to the Senate floor, and take his chances. The implicit message was that Reid might lose � but lose in a way that showed Hispanic voters he was trying.
more...
a1b2c3
05-21 11:54 AM
please reply in case you need more info
ronhira
10-05 09:34 PM
Neil, Hoffman, Greg, IIya, ,
we will all love you.... and thank you for showing us the light..... to make this world a better place.....
THANK YOU
we will all love you.... and thank you for showing us the light..... to make this world a better place.....
THANK YOU
shx
05-25 04:01 AM
Fax sent
starlite
07-21 11:33 AM
As long as you never out of status from the last time you reenter US (Aug 97) you should be OK and should submit your I485
Thank you katrina for your response.
My fear is that if I have an interview, I would fall to pieces and get so nervous to answer questions.
I also wonder if my entries from 1986 will show up when they check the records.
Thank you katrina for your response.
My fear is that if I have an interview, I would fall to pieces and get so nervous to answer questions.
I also wonder if my entries from 1986 will show up when they check the records.
lazycis
01-15 10:48 AM
Hi!
I was wondering if you guys know any link on Dept on labor (or uscis.gov) that says that employer is responsible for all the legal(lawyer) fees. I work for a government firm and they only pay H1b fees that they are supposed to pay to USCIS. At the same time, they force me to hire a lawyer (I cannot file it myself) and they want me to pay for the lawyer.
I was wondering if you know of any law that I can show them and ask them to pay for the same.
Thanks in advance :)
-Supported the million dollar drive
Title IV, Pub.L. 105-277 (October 21, 1998) "Workforce Improvement Act" (ACWIA) of 1998
Sec. 413 (a)(vi)(II)
"It is a violation of this clause for an employer who has filed an application under this subsection to require an alien who
is the subject of a petition filed under section 214(c)(1), for which a fee is imposed under section 214(c)(9), to reimburse, or otherwise compensate, the employer for part or all of the cost of such fee."
http://www.nafsa.org/_/Document/_/acwia_-_american_competitiveness.pdf
Legal fees may be different.
I was wondering if you guys know any link on Dept on labor (or uscis.gov) that says that employer is responsible for all the legal(lawyer) fees. I work for a government firm and they only pay H1b fees that they are supposed to pay to USCIS. At the same time, they force me to hire a lawyer (I cannot file it myself) and they want me to pay for the lawyer.
I was wondering if you know of any law that I can show them and ask them to pay for the same.
Thanks in advance :)
-Supported the million dollar drive
Title IV, Pub.L. 105-277 (October 21, 1998) "Workforce Improvement Act" (ACWIA) of 1998
Sec. 413 (a)(vi)(II)
"It is a violation of this clause for an employer who has filed an application under this subsection to require an alien who
is the subject of a petition filed under section 214(c)(1), for which a fee is imposed under section 214(c)(9), to reimburse, or otherwise compensate, the employer for part or all of the cost of such fee."
http://www.nafsa.org/_/Document/_/acwia_-_american_competitiveness.pdf
Legal fees may be different.
No comments:
Post a Comment