rockstart
03-10 11:07 AM
Guru's
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
wallpaper Dwyane Wade#39;s girlfriend
Suva
03-12 10:26 AM
I support this.
To all those who are screaming and shouting about "IV collecting Donations and doing nothing", I am not a donor myself, but we have to understand that IV IS THE ONLY platform we (EB community) have. However shaky or small the platform is. It takes a different kind of person to doggedly keep at something as insipid and difficult and immigration relief for EB and to put up with all the brickbats that armchair immigration proponents and to be beneficiaries like us throw at the IV core.
Pappu, I have put forth this idea many times, and will do so again, let IV be a members only forum, with a REASONABLE annual subscrition amount (say equal to themonthly cost of a decent cable/satellite subscription:-)..
This will achieve the following:
(1) Assured, stable fund collection for IV activities
(2) Only genuine IV supporters will sign up.
(3) To some extent, may be, will keep antis away (this is not assured, but may happen)
...Its Friday, so pickup a 6-pack, 12 pack or whatever pack on your way home, and relax...
To all those who are screaming and shouting about "IV collecting Donations and doing nothing", I am not a donor myself, but we have to understand that IV IS THE ONLY platform we (EB community) have. However shaky or small the platform is. It takes a different kind of person to doggedly keep at something as insipid and difficult and immigration relief for EB and to put up with all the brickbats that armchair immigration proponents and to be beneficiaries like us throw at the IV core.
Pappu, I have put forth this idea many times, and will do so again, let IV be a members only forum, with a REASONABLE annual subscrition amount (say equal to themonthly cost of a decent cable/satellite subscription:-)..
This will achieve the following:
(1) Assured, stable fund collection for IV activities
(2) Only genuine IV supporters will sign up.
(3) To some extent, may be, will keep antis away (this is not assured, but may happen)
...Its Friday, so pickup a 6-pack, 12 pack or whatever pack on your way home, and relax...
yabadaba
07-24 07:51 AM
Sorry, you are right. I hadn't had my coffee. Sorry for the false alarm.
can u please delete your post...this is ridiculous
can u please delete your post...this is ridiculous
2011 NBA baller Dwyane Wade and
DallasBlue
01-24 11:06 PM
IV members,
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
How about we start writing letters to the WhiteHouse/President on
(i) Eliminate per country quota limits
(ii) Recapture the lost visas
(iii) Porcessing dates cannot go back
for administrative fixes ?
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
How about we start writing letters to the WhiteHouse/President on
(i) Eliminate per country quota limits
(ii) Recapture the lost visas
(iii) Porcessing dates cannot go back
for administrative fixes ?
more...
kondur_007
07-12 04:30 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
This is simply the explanation as to why will EB2 India get a huge number and not so much for EB2 China (so when year end statistics come out, there would not be too much noise about why EB2 India got several thousands of visa numbers more than any other category).
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
This is simply the explanation as to why will EB2 India get a huge number and not so much for EB2 China (so when year end statistics come out, there would not be too much noise about why EB2 India got several thousands of visa numbers more than any other category).
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
gcnotfiledyet
02-28 02:33 PM
What a lovely change. Every time Obama and his press Secy opens their mouth, markets dive into red. In this country Main Street and Wall Street are in bed with each other :-)
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Expect huge government control pretty much over everything from now on. Times of big government are back. Government (read leftist like Obama) has seen the result of private investors. Healthcare is a mess, education is below par, social security/medicare is on brink, rich getting richer, poor getting worse etc.
Obama has totally different philosophy than republicans. Bill clinton said era of big govt were over. But that is about to change. In insurance / pharma sectors govt will wipe off these scumbags. Insurance companies are nothing but taking away profits for no help. There is no reason for them to exist. If you think about insurance general americans are paying 11k for family on average income of 48k. That is tax of 20%. Also add profit taking by insurance companies to increase costs, preventive care totally denied, admins taking decision instead of doctors etc. I would rather pay 10% more taxes to govt than to insurance companies.
Govt is all ready to wipe off sallie mae. There is no reason for private investors need to provide loans for students. Government should be able to make federal loans and help students. Private investors made loans to students to fund their luxuries during colleges. These essential services critical for a nation should not be used to make profit. Or else it results in what we are seeing today.
Either way there is no debate that Obama will bring more government in every sector. This will discourage investors to put their money into it. It will also mean higher taxes for average public to use these services. It can mean that country will move in direction of services provided to average Joe rather than corporations making profits. As for investors they can forget to make blind profits from wall street. They will have to fund innovation rather than profit making by abusing law (read housing crisis).
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Expect huge government control pretty much over everything from now on. Times of big government are back. Government (read leftist like Obama) has seen the result of private investors. Healthcare is a mess, education is below par, social security/medicare is on brink, rich getting richer, poor getting worse etc.
Obama has totally different philosophy than republicans. Bill clinton said era of big govt were over. But that is about to change. In insurance / pharma sectors govt will wipe off these scumbags. Insurance companies are nothing but taking away profits for no help. There is no reason for them to exist. If you think about insurance general americans are paying 11k for family on average income of 48k. That is tax of 20%. Also add profit taking by insurance companies to increase costs, preventive care totally denied, admins taking decision instead of doctors etc. I would rather pay 10% more taxes to govt than to insurance companies.
Govt is all ready to wipe off sallie mae. There is no reason for private investors need to provide loans for students. Government should be able to make federal loans and help students. Private investors made loans to students to fund their luxuries during colleges. These essential services critical for a nation should not be used to make profit. Or else it results in what we are seeing today.
Either way there is no debate that Obama will bring more government in every sector. This will discourage investors to put their money into it. It will also mean higher taxes for average public to use these services. It can mean that country will move in direction of services provided to average Joe rather than corporations making profits. As for investors they can forget to make blind profits from wall street. They will have to fund innovation rather than profit making by abusing law (read housing crisis).
more...
yabadaba
09-26 10:53 AM
my email:
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
2010 Dwyane Wade#39;s
BumbleBee
08-16 06:22 PM
Because you guys are not as clever as EB2s.
Very Good first post :eek:!!! Please hide wherever you were hiding till now, STOP judging.
clever adj
Definition: bright, ingenious
Antonyms: awkward, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, naive, senseless, stupid, unclever
Very Good first post :eek:!!! Please hide wherever you were hiding till now, STOP judging.
clever adj
Definition: bright, ingenious
Antonyms: awkward, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, naive, senseless, stupid, unclever
more...
yagw
07-13 10:06 AM
Thanks...Excerpt from the same document
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
It is not a contradiction to the previous statement.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
It is not a contradiction to the previous statement.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
hair Dwyane Wade called the lawsuit
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
more...
WillIBLucky
11-22 01:23 PM
I dont think that is correct - as per my lawyer this is what she says -
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
hot dwyane wade girlfriend 2011.
ivy55
01-16 08:17 PM
Contributing $20/month
more...
house NBA Superstar Dwyane Wade
makemygc
06-12 02:55 PM
very well said, some people here say (or is it hope) that getting an amendment introduced and passed is as simple as buying a ticket to a movie. After all the shock treatment given to us by durbin, kyl, kennedy some people just want more shock treatment
So what do you suggest exactly? Kill CIR and come up with Skill or some new bill. If in your opinion getting an ammendment itself in CIR is difficult then you can image the state of getting altogether a new bill solely for the GC, as if the senate or House cares.
In my opinion, our only hope is getting attached to a big bill, CIR or whatever. Rowing alone..we can never cross this sea of retrogression. You know the kind of funding that we have. When it comes to funding very few comes forward.
So what do you suggest exactly? Kill CIR and come up with Skill or some new bill. If in your opinion getting an ammendment itself in CIR is difficult then you can image the state of getting altogether a new bill solely for the GC, as if the senate or House cares.
In my opinion, our only hope is getting attached to a big bill, CIR or whatever. Rowing alone..we can never cross this sea of retrogression. You know the kind of funding that we have. When it comes to funding very few comes forward.
tattoo dwyane wade girlfriend 2011.
sts_seeker
02-07 01:15 PM
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
more...
pictures dwyane wade girlfriend 2011.
srkamath
07-12 10:31 PM
Use of "01" instead of "10" has been common mistake by USCIS. I came across couple of such cases. This is typo error and they will fix it.
i guess i read too much into it........
i guess i read too much into it........
dresses dwyane wade girlfriend 2011.
zuhail
05-08 07:07 PM
Friends,
Time is right now to recapture the visa numbers.
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." --Victor Hugo.
We need to raise funds for the sole purpose of passing the EB Visa Re-Capture Bill!
Time is right now to recapture the visa numbers.
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." --Victor Hugo.
We need to raise funds for the sole purpose of passing the EB Visa Re-Capture Bill!
more...
makeup dwyane wade girlfriend 2011
uma001
10-05 07:25 PM
Add Amerigroup Corporation to the list
girlfriend Dwyane Wade#39;s girlfriend
softcrowd
03-18 09:37 AM
I am 04/2004 EB2 and I just hope that Ron's prediction comes true.
One thing about his April PD movement "prediction" - Ron Gotcher never predicted that..He just said he passed on what he heard from an official.
But in this case (July one), it looks like his prediction!! So lets see!
One thing about his April PD movement "prediction" - Ron Gotcher never predicted that..He just said he passed on what he heard from an official.
But in this case (July one), it looks like his prediction!! So lets see!
hairstyles dresses dwyane wade Dwyane
varshadas
01-30 02:51 PM
After we come up with the final flyer with images and stuff, we should get it reviewed by IV to make sure that we don't have conflicting statements. We have to get color printouts. We can get them at Kinko's.
Who is good with PPT? Someone can work on the images? Do we want to use IV's existing images or make some new ones?
Thanks,
Varsha
Who is good with PPT? Someone can work on the images? Do we want to use IV's existing images or make some new ones?
Thanks,
Varsha
svbp007
02-24 01:53 PM
Hi, I hope somebody helps in my dilemma.
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
There should not be a problem with your L1. It was a requirement to get L1...not to stay on L1. Given that L1 is a dual intent category...it does not make sense either.
I know directly of a case where the company from which a colleague came from India was sold to another company ....but because in the preceding 3 years the Indian company was an affiliate...it was OK.
What L1 requirements are you talking about ?...is there any rule that you saw that states that if the subsidiary closes L1 becomes invalid?...can you provide that link/info ?
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
There should not be a problem with your L1. It was a requirement to get L1...not to stay on L1. Given that L1 is a dual intent category...it does not make sense either.
I know directly of a case where the company from which a colleague came from India was sold to another company ....but because in the preceding 3 years the Indian company was an affiliate...it was OK.
What L1 requirements are you talking about ?...is there any rule that you saw that states that if the subsidiary closes L1 becomes invalid?...can you provide that link/info ?
ArunAntonio
04-23 05:54 PM
[/QUOTE] Its not like you are going to threaten to vote against them. YOU HAVE NO VOTING power for next 15 years.[/QUOTE]
Logic Life -- YOU ROCK MAN !!
Logic Life -- YOU ROCK MAN !!
