StarSun
03-03 11:05 AM
/\/\/\/\
wallpaper Fight Club, 1999, Edward
khans02
12-28 02:24 PM
I just got my I140 approved. Waiting for 485 visa number to become avaiable. Have an offer of a better paying job in a bigger company. Can I switch Company and still carry the PD from the LC/I140 of the previous employer?
If I can port the PD date then how much time am I losing in temrs of filing for new LC and I140?
Thanks for quick response. I need to let the new employer know of my decision.
Saeed:confused:
If I can port the PD date then how much time am I losing in temrs of filing for new LC and I140?
Thanks for quick response. I need to let the new employer know of my decision.
Saeed:confused:
virald
07-18 11:30 AM
I think next time any one of us talks to USCIS, we should ask this question as to "Whether they have generated any rejection notices for apps received on July 2 2007 and have they mailed them".....my attorney says so far they have not received any rejection notices for apps filed on July 2 2007.
I guess it looks like we should wait at least a week before calling USCIS.
Make sure guys that between now and then, your attorney has not received the application (meaning it is still with USCIS).
I guess it looks like we should wait at least a week before calling USCIS.
Make sure guys that between now and then, your attorney has not received the application (meaning it is still with USCIS).
2011 Tagged: fight club, edward
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
more...
logiclife
12-20 05:50 PM
If you were not laid off, it is fine. Technically you are out of status only when you are laid off. If company didn't pay you that is probably an issue for the company not you.
If you traveled out and came back to US with a proper visa stamping, your old "wrongdoings" are pardoned. That is what 245(k) is all about. If you are not filing your GC through the same employer, you are even better off.
Relax !
Your first paragraph is wrong. If you are not working, then you are out of status. Regardless of whether your employer formally terminated employment and formally cancelled your H1B. Out of status means staying in USA legally, but not doing what you are supposed to be doing. If you dont attend classes and go to college when on student visa, you are out of status even though you are legally present.
Your second paragraph, about "old wrongdoing" being pardoned, yes, 245(k) would clear that. However, if he had disclosed it, then yes, he would be in the clear.
Now keep in mind that everyone, goes out of job once in a while and is unemployed for 10-15 days or even a month during the course of time. Technically, that is out of status. But that doesnt mean everyone discloses it in their 485 form. Does that mean that everyone will get rejected ?
If you traveled out and came back to US with a proper visa stamping, your old "wrongdoings" are pardoned. That is what 245(k) is all about. If you are not filing your GC through the same employer, you are even better off.
Relax !
Your first paragraph is wrong. If you are not working, then you are out of status. Regardless of whether your employer formally terminated employment and formally cancelled your H1B. Out of status means staying in USA legally, but not doing what you are supposed to be doing. If you dont attend classes and go to college when on student visa, you are out of status even though you are legally present.
Your second paragraph, about "old wrongdoing" being pardoned, yes, 245(k) would clear that. However, if he had disclosed it, then yes, he would be in the clear.
Now keep in mind that everyone, goes out of job once in a while and is unemployed for 10-15 days or even a month during the course of time. Technically, that is out of status. But that doesnt mean everyone discloses it in their 485 form. Does that mean that everyone will get rejected ?
logiclife
04-23 04:22 PM
-------------
Northern California members we need volunteers for an event on Wednesday (04/25) in Campbell @ 1:00 p.m. for an hour. This is much more interactive event. No undocumented immigration issues just EB related issues. Please join the yahoo group and get involved. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NC_Immigration_Voice/
Lets keep the momentum going.
You may want to start a new thread with an appropriate title, to get more attention from members in Northern CA.
Northern California members we need volunteers for an event on Wednesday (04/25) in Campbell @ 1:00 p.m. for an hour. This is much more interactive event. No undocumented immigration issues just EB related issues. Please join the yahoo group and get involved. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NC_Immigration_Voice/
Lets keep the momentum going.
You may want to start a new thread with an appropriate title, to get more attention from members in Northern CA.
more...
skd
09-18 01:47 PM
This is MUCH worse than Dot-Com bubble, As Dot-Com bubble was just for IT industry, this financial sector, Housing Sector, Insurence Sector. And obviously IT as IT is service industry for all these.
So we don't know what will happen.
It took 3-4 years to recover from dot com bubble........now this is the blast of financial industry so lets see how long it will take to recover....
So we don't know what will happen.
It took 3-4 years to recover from dot com bubble........now this is the blast of financial industry so lets see how long it will take to recover....
2010 helena onham carter fight
ronhira
04-11 06:05 PM
Good point. I appreciate your hard work.
This may be helpful
245(i), Adjustment of Status Permanent Residence, Life Act | V Visa, K Visa (http://www.callyourlawyers.com/245%28i%29revival.html)
GRANDFATHERED DERIVATIVE FAMILY MEMBERS
Grandfathered children and spouses: Accepting Applications for Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 06/10/1999 INS memo
Section 245(i) defines the term "beneficiary" to include a spouse or
child "eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act." This
applies to spouses or children "accompanying or following to join" the
principal alien.
An alien who is accompanying or following to join an alien who is a
grandfathered alien is thus also the "beneficiary" of the grandfathered
petition or labor certification application and is also grandfathered.
Since an alien's ability to characterize himself or herself as
"accompanying or following to join" the principal alien depends on the
existence of a qualifying relationship at the time of the principal's
adjustment, adjudicators must determine whether the relationship existed
prior to the time the alien adjusted status. Officers should remember
that the burden of proof to establish the qualifying relationship rests
with the applicant.
The spouse or child of a grandfathered alien as of January 14 is also
grandfathered for 245(i) purposes. This means that the spouse or child
is grandfathered irrespective of whether the spouse or child adjusts
with the principal. The pre-January 15 spouse or child also are
grandfathered even after losing the status of spouse or child, such as
by divorce or by becoming 21 years of age, by the petitioner�s
naturalization, through the parents� divorce, or even if the principal
or petitioner dies. Grandfathered eligibility attaches to the person and
not the petition. Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or
labor certification applications will marry or have children after the
qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of
status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to
adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or
child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status.
An alien who becomes the child or spouse of a grandfathered alien
after the alien adjusts status or immigrates cannot adjust status under
section 245(i) unless he or she has an independent basis for
grandfathering.
"Aged-out" children
Often, a principal alien who has filed a visa petition or labor
certification application will have a "child" who reaches the age of 21,
and thus no longer meet the statutory definition of child, before the
petition or application is approved or the principal alien adjusts
status. However, such an "aged-out" beneficiary will remain a
beneficiary for the purpose of determining whether he or she may use
section 245(i) to adjust status.
Eligibility: An alien who is included in the categories of
restricted aliens under 245.1(b) and meets the definition of a
``grandfathered alien'' may apply for adjustment of status under section
245 of the Act if the alien meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(7) of this section:
(1) Is physically present in the United States;
(2) Is eligible for immigrant classification and has an immigrant visa
number immediately available at the time of filing for adjustment of
status;
(3) Is not inadmissible from the United States under any provision of
section 212 of the Act, or all grounds for inadmissibility have been
waived;
(4) Properly files Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status on or after October 1, 1994, with the
required fee for that application;
(5) Properly files Supplement A to Form I-485 on or after October 1,
1994;
(6) Pays an additional sum of $1,000, unless payment of the additional
sum is not required under section 245(i) of the Act; and
(7) Will adjust status under section 245 of the Act to that of lawful
permanent resident of the United States on or after October 1, 1994.
hypocrisy as its best...... need another quote from gandhi....
u'r saying its crime for others to file application of their spouse & children...... aren't u waiting for the aos approval for u'r child...... but if other files for their family member..... according to u its a crime....
This may be helpful
245(i), Adjustment of Status Permanent Residence, Life Act | V Visa, K Visa (http://www.callyourlawyers.com/245%28i%29revival.html)
GRANDFATHERED DERIVATIVE FAMILY MEMBERS
Grandfathered children and spouses: Accepting Applications for Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 06/10/1999 INS memo
Section 245(i) defines the term "beneficiary" to include a spouse or
child "eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act." This
applies to spouses or children "accompanying or following to join" the
principal alien.
An alien who is accompanying or following to join an alien who is a
grandfathered alien is thus also the "beneficiary" of the grandfathered
petition or labor certification application and is also grandfathered.
Since an alien's ability to characterize himself or herself as
"accompanying or following to join" the principal alien depends on the
existence of a qualifying relationship at the time of the principal's
adjustment, adjudicators must determine whether the relationship existed
prior to the time the alien adjusted status. Officers should remember
that the burden of proof to establish the qualifying relationship rests
with the applicant.
The spouse or child of a grandfathered alien as of January 14 is also
grandfathered for 245(i) purposes. This means that the spouse or child
is grandfathered irrespective of whether the spouse or child adjusts
with the principal. The pre-January 15 spouse or child also are
grandfathered even after losing the status of spouse or child, such as
by divorce or by becoming 21 years of age, by the petitioner�s
naturalization, through the parents� divorce, or even if the principal
or petitioner dies. Grandfathered eligibility attaches to the person and
not the petition. Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or
labor certification applications will marry or have children after the
qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of
status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to
adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or
child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status.
An alien who becomes the child or spouse of a grandfathered alien
after the alien adjusts status or immigrates cannot adjust status under
section 245(i) unless he or she has an independent basis for
grandfathering.
"Aged-out" children
Often, a principal alien who has filed a visa petition or labor
certification application will have a "child" who reaches the age of 21,
and thus no longer meet the statutory definition of child, before the
petition or application is approved or the principal alien adjusts
status. However, such an "aged-out" beneficiary will remain a
beneficiary for the purpose of determining whether he or she may use
section 245(i) to adjust status.
Eligibility: An alien who is included in the categories of
restricted aliens under 245.1(b) and meets the definition of a
``grandfathered alien'' may apply for adjustment of status under section
245 of the Act if the alien meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(7) of this section:
(1) Is physically present in the United States;
(2) Is eligible for immigrant classification and has an immigrant visa
number immediately available at the time of filing for adjustment of
status;
(3) Is not inadmissible from the United States under any provision of
section 212 of the Act, or all grounds for inadmissibility have been
waived;
(4) Properly files Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status on or after October 1, 1994, with the
required fee for that application;
(5) Properly files Supplement A to Form I-485 on or after October 1,
1994;
(6) Pays an additional sum of $1,000, unless payment of the additional
sum is not required under section 245(i) of the Act; and
(7) Will adjust status under section 245 of the Act to that of lawful
permanent resident of the United States on or after October 1, 1994.
hypocrisy as its best...... need another quote from gandhi....
u'r saying its crime for others to file application of their spouse & children...... aren't u waiting for the aos approval for u'r child...... but if other files for their family member..... according to u its a crime....
more...
rpatel
07-24 08:42 AM
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
hair Helena Bonham Carter: In all
zen
04-06 08:55 PM
I know a person who was sent back; IO called the end client to verify his employment and asked if they could hire american worker instead, when the employer said they could, IO sent him back. I think they are only going after H1's working for smaller consulting companies.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
more...
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 !!
hot Fight Club Lobby Card Set
Jaime
09-10 12:27 PM
Your employer is exploiting you and you want to change jobs, but can't - Your employer is exploiting your H1-B status by underpaying you and overworking you, and perhaps even withholding your visa papers from you. Most people in that situation would have left and gotten another job, but you can't because then you'd have to start your green card process all over again, and not all companies will sponsor you for a GC either.
more...
house English actress and Fight Club
Legal
07-04 09:10 PM
[QUOTE=nixstor]Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
"Essentially, the numbers are spread out during the first three quarters and whatever is left is available during the last quarter"
On reading the Murthy article it appears that the biggest mistake USCIS committed was using up the visa numbers before the 4th qtr began on 7/2/07.
USCIS did it other way around...desparately rushed to use up the numbers before the 4th qtr began....only explanation is to avoid doing additional paperwork for the July filers...
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
"Essentially, the numbers are spread out during the first three quarters and whatever is left is available during the last quarter"
On reading the Murthy article it appears that the biggest mistake USCIS committed was using up the visa numbers before the 4th qtr began on 7/2/07.
USCIS did it other way around...desparately rushed to use up the numbers before the 4th qtr began....only explanation is to avoid doing additional paperwork for the July filers...
tattoo onham carter fight club.
mugwump
09-26 12:00 PM
She changed the article, but shouldn't we ask her to apologize for misinforming people???
more...
pictures helena onham carter fight club quotes
gc__aspirant
05-30 02:49 AM
Hi All,
I applied my I485 in April 2007 (PD-July 2002, RD-April 23, 2007) and there has been no update (LUDs) on my application even after FP in May 2007. I called up NSC in Nov 2007 and they confirmed that FPs are OK and it is OK to have no LUDs after FP. Since then, it is a waiting game. Till Feb, i was told that my app is under security review (although my spouse's review was complete). After the USCIS's memo in Feb, there is no update either. My attorney has opened an SR with NSC on may 8th and they acknowledged that my app is outside the normal processing time.
Any suggestions on what steps should i take?
Thanks
I applied my I485 in April 2007 (PD-July 2002, RD-April 23, 2007) and there has been no update (LUDs) on my application even after FP in May 2007. I called up NSC in Nov 2007 and they confirmed that FPs are OK and it is OK to have no LUDs after FP. Since then, it is a waiting game. Till Feb, i was told that my app is under security review (although my spouse's review was complete). After the USCIS's memo in Feb, there is no update either. My attorney has opened an SR with NSC on may 8th and they acknowledged that my app is outside the normal processing time.
Any suggestions on what steps should i take?
Thanks
dresses Bonham Carter, Meat Loaf
battineni
08-10 02:35 PM
I am in. I am EB2 but I support this because this makes sense.
Thanks for your heartful support.... we need more people like you to support.
Thanks for your heartful support.... we need more people like you to support.
more...
makeup Carter-fight club- grenier
kaisersose
02-21 04:12 PM
I had one question. If there 140 K quota and 400 k employment AOS pending shuldnt they be cleared in 2-3 years (140k*3) since no matter what 140 k visas are going to get used (for example if there are leftovers others will get it)?
Even assuming hereafter no visa numbers will be wasted, It is not exactly FIFO for that to happen.
Consider this:
a) The Indian Applicant started back in 2003. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
b) There is a German Applicant who will start in 2008. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
The German will get a visa number assigned and a green card, but the Indian will not as he still has thousands ahead of him waiting for visa numbers.
Therefore 400K at 140K/ year is not how it works.
Even assuming hereafter no visa numbers will be wasted, It is not exactly FIFO for that to happen.
Consider this:
a) The Indian Applicant started back in 2003. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
b) There is a German Applicant who will start in 2008. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
The German will get a visa number assigned and a green card, but the Indian will not as he still has thousands ahead of him waiting for visa numbers.
Therefore 400K at 140K/ year is not how it works.
girlfriend Helena Bonham Carter:
desi3933
03-11 11:02 AM
The problem with this guy is he has got his GC and now he doesn't want anybody to have it. Basically he enjoys when people are having of pain. That's the reason he doesn't want any progress in PD's. Dude, if you don't like if people are talking about positve things such as "PD becomes Current" then my humble request to you is just stay-out of any converstations.
See here this guy is also saying the same thing what my lawyer has predicted.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?p=28881#post28881
Hey Joker -
I joined IV 5 years after getting my GC. Please look at my 900+ posts and pull out one (just one) that justify your stupid thoughts.
If that's make you happy - PD will be current next month. Now start dreaming again.
-- desi3933
See here this guy is also saying the same thing what my lawyer has predicted.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?p=28881#post28881
Hey Joker -
I joined IV 5 years after getting my GC. Please look at my 900+ posts and pull out one (just one) that justify your stupid thoughts.
If that's make you happy - PD will be current next month. Now start dreaming again.
-- desi3933
hairstyles Helena Bonham Carter on King#39;s
laksmi
01-18 07:00 PM
Even a Traffic police can ask for approve H1 copy along with Driver license.
Thanks
Thanks
Karthikthiru
09-11 11:03 AM
It is already approved by Immigration Sub-committe about 3-4 weeks back. It has to pass through judicial sub-committe
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=201&a=29863
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=201&a=29863
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
chanduv23
01-30 09:08 PM
Benching is a concept where a H1b employee is not productive to the sponsering employer, during this time the employer does not want to pay the employee. This is not permitted because such a concept just does not make sense.
Generally people find it difficult to find their first work assignment when they do not have US experience and a lot of people have initial bench, which is also not valid, but it is common.
Nowadays a lot of these body shops also manage to get some product development or outsourced work from clients and when their employees come on bench they are made to work on these internal projects or manage outsourced work and their payroll continues as they do productive work as well as look for future assignments.
Your case is defferent and you not recieving pay check during summer is not bench.
Prolonged benching have been taken seriously by USCIS. I am not aware of any cases in detail but people have had issues with spouses not getting h4 etc...
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
Generally people find it difficult to find their first work assignment when they do not have US experience and a lot of people have initial bench, which is also not valid, but it is common.
Nowadays a lot of these body shops also manage to get some product development or outsourced work from clients and when their employees come on bench they are made to work on these internal projects or manage outsourced work and their payroll continues as they do productive work as well as look for future assignments.
Your case is defferent and you not recieving pay check during summer is not bench.
Prolonged benching have been taken seriously by USCIS. I am not aware of any cases in detail but people have had issues with spouses not getting h4 etc...
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
0 comments:
Post a Comment