485Mbe4001
07-08 04:25 PM
why single out one guy, he is doing what is good for him. What do you expect if the even people registered on this site are not willing to do do something to help themselves. The attidude is i have EAD/AP i am free or I am EB1/2 its just a matter of time till i get the GC. Even the politicians are using us for their own agenda and to score political points.
Just to add to your description of indians, We have people like Bobby Jindal of indian origin who doesnt care about his own roots and his own people but would do anything for his own selfish political career.(Even change religon and change name). Shame on you Mr Jindal.
Just to add to your description of indians, We have people like Bobby Jindal of indian origin who doesnt care about his own roots and his own people but would do anything for his own selfish political career.(Even change religon and change name). Shame on you Mr Jindal.
wallpaper political cartoon
wandmaker
04-21 01:46 PM
I understand that ... but I have seen the diploma accepted and the 2+3 accepted but of course nothing accepted by an adjudicator (or several) is binding. It is a tricky case. In a case like this EB3 skilled worker with 3 years of experience is always the best route to go and then once approved they can try for EB2.
The OP filed 140 as EB3 - USCIS has denied the 140 stating that the Diploma is not equivalent to US Bachelors Degree.
The only thing I see in the education is that s/he studied for 16 years, which does not provide privilege of claiming that his/her study is equivalent to US Bachelors. To be precise, 10 (School) + 2 (School) + 1 (First Year of B.Com) + 3 (XYZ Diploma) - The final certificate awarded is a DIPLOMA so OPs' education is not even equivalent to Indian B.Sc/B.Com.
In my opinion, s/he has to start from scratch and word the labor properly. Meanwhile, filing MTR / appeal can help - if one is in the last year of 6 year limit.
The OP filed 140 as EB3 - USCIS has denied the 140 stating that the Diploma is not equivalent to US Bachelors Degree.
The only thing I see in the education is that s/he studied for 16 years, which does not provide privilege of claiming that his/her study is equivalent to US Bachelors. To be precise, 10 (School) + 2 (School) + 1 (First Year of B.Com) + 3 (XYZ Diploma) - The final certificate awarded is a DIPLOMA so OPs' education is not even equivalent to Indian B.Sc/B.Com.
In my opinion, s/he has to start from scratch and word the labor properly. Meanwhile, filing MTR / appeal can help - if one is in the last year of 6 year limit.
pkjena
08-01 10:41 PM
Sorry forgot to give the link
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
2011 cartoons:
lazycis
02-28 01:49 PM
Can you please let us know the URL for the latest name check FAQ posted today.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17312&d=1204204596
Questions & Answers
BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY UPDATE
Q1. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A1. Applications included in this policy are:
• I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
• I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
• I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
• I-698, Application to Adjust from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603).
Q2. How has USCIS changed its national security requirements?
A2. USCIS has not changed its background check policies for naturalization applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for certain applications (see above) where the immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI name check response is received after approval. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. (Please refer to the USCIS Immigration Security Checks fact sheet on the USCIS website for more information.)
Q3. How has USCIS changed its adjudications requirements?
A3. For these forms, including applications for lawful permanent residence, USCIS will adjudicate the application based on all required evidence outlined in applicable law and regulation if the application is otherwise approvable, outside of normal processing times, and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days.
(more)
Q4. What happens if USCIS later receives adverse information from an FBI name check?
A4. In the unlikely event that Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) receives actionable adverse information from the FBI name check after the application is adjudicated, DHS may detain the applicant and initiate removal proceedings.
Q5. Why is this policy being implemented?
A5. This policy change responds to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS better align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q6. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security?
A6. Yes. Applications for lawful permanent residence will not be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable adverse information after the application is approved, removal proceedings may be initiated.
Q7. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are immediately affected by this policy change?
A7. USCIS is aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases that are otherwise approvable but have an FBI name check pending. A portion of these cases are both outside normal processing times and have an FBI name check that has been pending for more than 180 days. These cases will be subject to processing under the new policy. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases that can now be adjudicated will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q8. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A8. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400).
Q9. How long will it take for USCIS to work through the cases affected by the policy change?
A9. USCIS has begun identifying cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend customers wait until March 10 before inquiring about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
(more)
Q10. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A10. No.
Q11. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if their case is outside of normal processing times and they believe their application meets the criteria of this new policy?
A11. For pending applications outside of normal processing times, we recommend that customers wait until March 10, 2008, before inquiring about cases affected by this policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer service line at 1-800-375-5283. This procedure is for customers who have been previously informed that their case is pending due to the FBI name check. (Cases that are still pending within the processing times will be completed when the related adjudication actions are completed.)
Q12. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired?
A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks are needed.
– USCIS –
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17312&d=1204204596
Questions & Answers
BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY UPDATE
Q1. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A1. Applications included in this policy are:
• I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
• I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
• I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
• I-698, Application to Adjust from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603).
Q2. How has USCIS changed its national security requirements?
A2. USCIS has not changed its background check policies for naturalization applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for certain applications (see above) where the immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI name check response is received after approval. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. (Please refer to the USCIS Immigration Security Checks fact sheet on the USCIS website for more information.)
Q3. How has USCIS changed its adjudications requirements?
A3. For these forms, including applications for lawful permanent residence, USCIS will adjudicate the application based on all required evidence outlined in applicable law and regulation if the application is otherwise approvable, outside of normal processing times, and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days.
(more)
Q4. What happens if USCIS later receives adverse information from an FBI name check?
A4. In the unlikely event that Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) receives actionable adverse information from the FBI name check after the application is adjudicated, DHS may detain the applicant and initiate removal proceedings.
Q5. Why is this policy being implemented?
A5. This policy change responds to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS better align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q6. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security?
A6. Yes. Applications for lawful permanent residence will not be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable adverse information after the application is approved, removal proceedings may be initiated.
Q7. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are immediately affected by this policy change?
A7. USCIS is aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases that are otherwise approvable but have an FBI name check pending. A portion of these cases are both outside normal processing times and have an FBI name check that has been pending for more than 180 days. These cases will be subject to processing under the new policy. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases that can now be adjudicated will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q8. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A8. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400).
Q9. How long will it take for USCIS to work through the cases affected by the policy change?
A9. USCIS has begun identifying cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend customers wait until March 10 before inquiring about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
(more)
Q10. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A10. No.
Q11. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if their case is outside of normal processing times and they believe their application meets the criteria of this new policy?
A11. For pending applications outside of normal processing times, we recommend that customers wait until March 10, 2008, before inquiring about cases affected by this policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer service line at 1-800-375-5283. This procedure is for customers who have been previously informed that their case is pending due to the FBI name check. (Cases that are still pending within the processing times will be completed when the related adjudication actions are completed.)
Q12. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired?
A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks are needed.
– USCIS –
more...
gapala
04-16 04:10 PM
That is accurate I have done 10+2+1+3
So this is actually 16 years of education overall and not 14 as suggested by other member. Sorry to ask, could you confirm this again, or did you mean to say 10+3+1? as you said this is accurate about what other member said.
So this is actually 16 years of education overall and not 14 as suggested by other member. Sorry to ask, could you confirm this again, or did you mean to say 10+3+1? as you said this is accurate about what other member said.
sabkaNumbrAaga
06-02 09:30 AM
Dude....we need more people like you.......See below....
OpenCongress is a free, open-source, non-profit, and non-partisan web resource with a mission to make Congress more transparent and to encourage civic engagement. OpenCongress is a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation. To read more about our approach, our data sources, and how Congress works, see About OpenCongress.
OpenCongress is a free, open-source, non-profit, and non-partisan web resource with a mission to make Congress more transparent and to encourage civic engagement. OpenCongress is a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation. To read more about our approach, our data sources, and how Congress works, see About OpenCongress.
more...
sankar_203
08-07 10:31 PM
Congrats suresh..it's good to see Dec 05 getting approved..best option would be to get your wife here on F1..Some of the schools required only TOEFL ..after coming to US get married again in US and apply for 485..if she is currently working in india..u can try L1 too....ofcourse for H-1B u need to wait for one more year..i don't think US embassy in Chennai will get to know u got married unless she tells them..there is no fraud or anything in this..i believe it's like..don't ask, don't say..ur not cheating anyone..trying to find a small loop hole for a very good reason..
Hi All
I just saw the USCIS GC approval email notice - EB2-I - Dec 20'th 2005 Priority Date
I have same issue as few others have. I'm not married yet. I have applied for GC and luckily the GC has been approved (when I really don't want it to be approved). ... Trust me I was praying god all the time.
My priority date is EB2-I Dec 20'th 2005 and god knows how they approved it much before every one else. When all others really want their GC's.
There are lots people who are in queue with Jan 2004 and later priority dates and whose cases are still pending... How could they approve my case so soon...
I have scheduled for a travel to India on August 15'th 2008 to get married. I wanted to marry and get my wife to USA. I 'm engaged with girl at India and all set for marriage this month (August 2008).
I believe my H1-B has been automatically canceled on immediate approval of GC.
How do I get my future wife to USA?. What are the options left out to me now?.
Please excuse me if this is a duplicate thread. I'm really in hurry and could not check all threads properly.
--Suresh
Hi All
I just saw the USCIS GC approval email notice - EB2-I - Dec 20'th 2005 Priority Date
I have same issue as few others have. I'm not married yet. I have applied for GC and luckily the GC has been approved (when I really don't want it to be approved). ... Trust me I was praying god all the time.
My priority date is EB2-I Dec 20'th 2005 and god knows how they approved it much before every one else. When all others really want their GC's.
There are lots people who are in queue with Jan 2004 and later priority dates and whose cases are still pending... How could they approve my case so soon...
I have scheduled for a travel to India on August 15'th 2008 to get married. I wanted to marry and get my wife to USA. I 'm engaged with girl at India and all set for marriage this month (August 2008).
I believe my H1-B has been automatically canceled on immediate approval of GC.
How do I get my future wife to USA?. What are the options left out to me now?.
Please excuse me if this is a duplicate thread. I'm really in hurry and could not check all threads properly.
--Suresh
2010 political cartoons and had
indo_obama
05-12 11:41 AM
The Dream act is supposed to happen only in your dreams.... Keep Dreaming:eek:
more...
perm2gc
05-17 09:56 AM
They asked the biggest takers of H-1B visas. They just so happened to be Indian companies, funny enough.
I don't see why you would think of the bill as insane. It weeds out the abuse clogging up an otherwise great visa program.
Ignorance is a bless...
I don't see why you would think of the bill as insane. It weeds out the abuse clogging up an otherwise great visa program.
Ignorance is a bless...
hair IPD Daily Political Cartoon
sapota
08-31 04:01 PM
should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The job of the media is to create sensationalism so that the news can be spread.
The general issues still are true.
Nah, I don't think so. Not a good article.
1. His salary CAN be raised.
2. His wife CAN work, as article mentions that he applied for GC in 2004
3. I never heard about 1 million - I guess we were talking about 140000 unused visas right? Where this 1 million came from?
4. If the company is bought - one doesn't generally reapply for GC.
Even little lies don't serve a good cause as this article can be easily discredited.
The general issues still are true.
Nah, I don't think so. Not a good article.
1. His salary CAN be raised.
2. His wife CAN work, as article mentions that he applied for GC in 2004
3. I never heard about 1 million - I guess we were talking about 140000 unused visas right? Where this 1 million came from?
4. If the company is bought - one doesn't generally reapply for GC.
Even little lies don't serve a good cause as this article can be easily discredited.
more...
Kitiara
02-07 09:23 AM
Yeah, at work, but not actually dong much. Eating a mint Aero and doodling with Photoshop. Eh, it's Friday afternoon, what else am I supposed to do? :)
Ooo, not sure if I should say who I voted for... Oh alright then. I voted for yours.
Close thing between you and Eilsoe, I have to admit. Almost didn't vote because I couldn't decide between them. But I went for yours, it showed more of the actual castle, and had that nice tudor bit in it too.
Ooo, not sure if I should say who I voted for... Oh alright then. I voted for yours.
Close thing between you and Eilsoe, I have to admit. Almost didn't vote because I couldn't decide between them. But I went for yours, it showed more of the actual castle, and had that nice tudor bit in it too.
hot Posted in Political cartoons
Kitiara
02-10 09:21 AM
Oooo, this is going to be <i>close</i>! ;)
more...
house political cartoons about
ramus
05-29 05:25 PM
Its all valid if CIR doesn't become law in current form... To oppose this we need to send web-fax /send fund and invite our all friends..
Once you done with web-fax please update web-fax thread with your comment..
Thank you so much.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I am a new member
My PD is 02/01/2005, my labour cert got approved in 03/01/2006,
I applied EB3 I40 on 05/18/2007 and got approved on 05/23/2007
Considering the scenario is my I140 invalid?
Once you done with web-fax please update web-fax thread with your comment..
Thank you so much.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I am a new member
My PD is 02/01/2005, my labour cert got approved in 03/01/2006,
I applied EB3 I40 on 05/18/2007 and got approved on 05/23/2007
Considering the scenario is my I140 invalid?
tattoo George Bush Political Cartoons
sanju
09-09 12:11 PM
On your previous post you mention about salary hike and %ges...can you please clarify if a person continues to work for same employer (who filed PERM and 140) and salary hike is (base salary or bonus) 10% or more per year and AOS application process takes 2-3 years (so, total 30% difference in 3 years)...is that a negative on your application? or can it be a reason for denial?
Thanks
Rahul
This is an excellent question Rahul. I have tried my best to find a definitive answer to this question. Different experts/lawyers have given different answer to this question. So I am not sure if salary hike at the same employer would hurt AOS application in anyway. On the face of it, it should be a no brainier and we would like to hear that. Most of the times, we all want to hear our lawyer give us a specific reply, so even if they lawyer is telling us something which doesn't directly imply what we want to hear, we still think that that the lawyer is telling us what we wanted to hear - "selective hearing".
But some lawyers have told me that substantial salary increase (30% in 3 years can be seen as substantial) could be a problem at USCIS. They could argue that the job/job requirement/job responsibilities have changed substantially as there is a substantial change in the wage rate offered. So it’s a grey area. In effect, system is designed to keep us where we are till the time the green card petition is approved. I realize that this doesn't provide a definitive answer to your question and sorry about that, but this is as much as I could find out about the specific question.
Thanks
Rahul
This is an excellent question Rahul. I have tried my best to find a definitive answer to this question. Different experts/lawyers have given different answer to this question. So I am not sure if salary hike at the same employer would hurt AOS application in anyway. On the face of it, it should be a no brainier and we would like to hear that. Most of the times, we all want to hear our lawyer give us a specific reply, so even if they lawyer is telling us something which doesn't directly imply what we want to hear, we still think that that the lawyer is telling us what we wanted to hear - "selective hearing".
But some lawyers have told me that substantial salary increase (30% in 3 years can be seen as substantial) could be a problem at USCIS. They could argue that the job/job requirement/job responsibilities have changed substantially as there is a substantial change in the wage rate offered. So it’s a grey area. In effect, system is designed to keep us where we are till the time the green card petition is approved. I realize that this doesn't provide a definitive answer to your question and sorry about that, but this is as much as I could find out about the specific question.
more...
pictures Political Cartoons
danila
07-31 10:24 AM
The online case status reflects the notice dates and not the actual received dates....These are the dates the cases were entered into USCIS's systems...
I believe it's not the notice date. My notice date is one day after the date from their website. Most likely it's that date when they entered the case into the system.
I believe it's not the notice date. My notice date is one day after the date from their website. Most likely it's that date when they entered the case into the system.
dresses Political cartoons are ideal
![current political cartoons. [Cartoon] Current Political](http://gbtimes.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/political-situation-in-pakistan1.jpg "[Cartoon] Current Political")
ramreddy
01-31 05:08 AM
Ms Su of TVU....why would someone stoop so low and looks like she became a convenient scapegoat for the students ..? not sure what'd you think. She has a Phd from UC Berkley and a patent on her name ....several publications.
I dug up her resume...
Dr. Susan Xiao-Ping Su
President of Tri-Valley University
Tri-Valley University TVU (http://trivalleyuniversity.org)
E-mail: ssu@trivalleyuniversity.org, su123@sbcglobal.net
EDUCATION
Ph .D. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 2001.
Major: Design; Minor I: Microscale Heat Transfer; Minor II: Integrated Circuit Technology.
Dissertation: Compliant Microleverage Mechanism Design for MEMS Application
Dissertation Advisors: Prof. Alice M. Agogino; Prof. Tsu-Jae King, Prof. Dennise K. Lieu
M. S. Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of California at Davis, 1997. Major: Design
Thesis: Computer-Aided Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of Spatial Mechanisms
Thesis Advisors: Prof. Harry H. Cheng; Prof. Bahram Ravani; Prof. An T. Yang (Emeritus)
B. S. Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, China, 1991.
Major Field of Study: Fluid Mechanics
WORK EXPERIENCE
1. President and Founder, Semiconductor System Integration, Pleasanton, 2003-present
� Consultant for Phosistor Technology, Pleasanton, on Semiconductor Device Fabrication, Development of photonic component (laser and OPM) process, Oxford Plasmalab DRIE and ICP etching of SiO2 for Optical MEMS devices.
� Consultant for California Micro Device on Chip-Scale-Packaging strengthen mechanism;
� Consultant for NASA on nano chemical sensor fabrication.
� High-density Magnetic Random Access Memory Development
2. Lecturer, HerGuan University, Sunnyvale, 2007
EE537 Analog IC Design, EE515 & 516 VLSI I & II
3. Lecturer, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, Fall 2004-2006
EE178 Digital System Design with FPGA, ME 101 Dynamic
4. Lecturer, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, 2004-2005;
ENGR 890 Design of MEMS; Design of CMOS Memory Circuit
ENGR 356 Computer Architecture; ENGR378 Digital System Design with Verilog.
5. Lecturer, International Technological University, Santa Clara, CA, 2004-2007
EEN967 Analog IC Design; EE 519 CMOS Memory Circuit Design; EE 511 VlSI I, II;
EEN 923 & 910 Semiconductor Physics & Devices; EEN 918 IC Fabrication Technology.
6. Lecturer, Northwestern Polytechnic University, Fremont, CA, 9/2002 -2004
EE 507 Analog IC Design; EE 520 CMOS Memory Circuit Design;
EE 506 VLSI II; EE 624 IC Fabrication Technology; EE 581 MEMS/NEMS Design;
Developing MEMS and nanotechnology concentration area curriculum.
7. Member of Technical Staff, Project manager, PicoNetics Inc., Fremont, 9/2000-9/2002.
� 256K 100MHz (TSMC 0.25m) and 4M 200MHz SRAM design (0.13m G logic process); RLC circuit for on-chip sin wave generation, sense amplifier fro SRAM, DRAM, Bandgap reference, voltage regulator, PLL circuit design, standard cell library design.
� Supervision of two layout engineers for a 256K SRAM circuit including all technical file set-up, layout optimization for minimum coupling and RC delay, Dracula LVS and Arcadia extraction, LVS and Extraction tools evaluation and memory compliers; UMC and TSMC 0.25, 0.18, 0.15 and 0.13 m process evaluation for SRAM.
8. Graduate Researcher, Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center (BSAC), and Berkeley Expert Technology System Lab (BEST), U. C. Berkeley, 1996-2000.
� Design, fabrication and testing of a resonant accelerometer (RXL) with on-chip amplifier and two-stage leverage mechanism by the SOI-MEMS integrated process.
� Compliant micro-leverage mechanism design and analysis, FEM analysis and simulation with ABAQUS and SUGAR; Design of the mechanism for force and displacement amplification in other MEMS devices including a micro-valve, an electrostatic actuator and the suspension of the disk drive.
9. Internship, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, EETD, 6/1999-12/1999.
� Optics programming; SEM and TEM measurements of glass samples.
10. Graduate Researcher, Integrated Engineering and Mechatronics Lab, Dept. of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, UC Davis, 1994-1996
� With Ch program, analysis of velocity and acceleration for 32 spatial mechanisms (4-bar, 5-bar, 6-bar and 7-bar); force and torque analysis of RCCC & RCRCR mechanisms;
� Designed a data acquisition system for PAS machine by communication of an AT-MIO-16F board in Labview.
GRADUATE THESIS ADVISING:
� Yaosong Tao, International Technological University, Ph.D. Thesis: RF MEMS Components for Communication Systems, 2004.
� Leo Huang, Northwestern Polytechnic University, M.S. Thesis, Contacting Printing Lithography for Polymeric Organic Light-Emitting Diode, 2005;
� Sam Shi, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis, A 8-bit Energy Recover Adder, 2005;
� Parthiv Pandya, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis: MRAM Core Cell Design and Optimization, 2004;
� Paisit Sriprataks, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis: MRAM Sensing Circuit Design, 2004;
� Balajee Premraj, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis: Design of an 8M MRAM, 2004;
� Raul Gali, Northwestern Polytechnic University, M.S. Thesis: Signal Process Circuit Design for a Resonant Accelerometer, 2003;
AWARDS and HONORS
� John H. Latoures Scholarship, Mechanical Engineering Department,U.C. Berkeley, 2001.
� Lankershim Awards, U.C. Berkeley, 2000
� National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship (1996-1999);
� American Associated University Woman (AAUW) Selected Professional Fellowship ,1995;
� University Fee Grant, UC Davis, 1994.
PUBLICATIONS
1. S. X. P. Su, H. S. Yang, Alice M Agogino, Resonant Accelerometer with a Two-Stage Microleverage Mechanism Fabricated by SOI-MEMS Technology, IEEE Sensors Journal, Vol.5, No.6 December 2005, p.1214-1223
2. An Sang Hou, Susan X. P. Su, Design of a Capacitive-Sensor Signal Processing System with High Accuracy and Short Conversion Time, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Volume 119, Issue 1, 28 March 2005, P.113-119
3. X-P S. Su, H. S. Yang, Analytical Modeling and FEM Simulation of Single-Stage Microleverage Mechanism, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44, 2217-2238, 2002.
4. X-P. S. Su, H. S. Yang, Two-Stage Microleverage Mechanism Optimization in a Resonant Accelerometer, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 22, 328-336, 2002.
5. X-P S. Su, H. S. Yang, Design of Compliant Microleverage Mechanism, Sensors and Actuators, A 87 146-156, 2001.
6. X-P S. Su, H. S. Yang, Single-Stage Microleverage Mechanism Optimization in a Resonant Accelerometer, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 21, 246-252, 2001
7. H. S. Yang, X-P S. Su and B. Bai, Strain Analysis in Uniaxial Tensile and Compression Testing of Anisotropic Materials, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 42 (2000) 2395-2415.
PATENTS
1. Susan X. P. Su, �A Folded-MTJ MRAM Cell� U.S. Patent No. US60/994941, 2007
I dug up her resume...
Dr. Susan Xiao-Ping Su
President of Tri-Valley University
Tri-Valley University TVU (http://trivalleyuniversity.org)
E-mail: ssu@trivalleyuniversity.org, su123@sbcglobal.net
EDUCATION
Ph .D. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 2001.
Major: Design; Minor I: Microscale Heat Transfer; Minor II: Integrated Circuit Technology.
Dissertation: Compliant Microleverage Mechanism Design for MEMS Application
Dissertation Advisors: Prof. Alice M. Agogino; Prof. Tsu-Jae King, Prof. Dennise K. Lieu
M. S. Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of California at Davis, 1997. Major: Design
Thesis: Computer-Aided Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of Spatial Mechanisms
Thesis Advisors: Prof. Harry H. Cheng; Prof. Bahram Ravani; Prof. An T. Yang (Emeritus)
B. S. Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, China, 1991.
Major Field of Study: Fluid Mechanics
WORK EXPERIENCE
1. President and Founder, Semiconductor System Integration, Pleasanton, 2003-present
� Consultant for Phosistor Technology, Pleasanton, on Semiconductor Device Fabrication, Development of photonic component (laser and OPM) process, Oxford Plasmalab DRIE and ICP etching of SiO2 for Optical MEMS devices.
� Consultant for California Micro Device on Chip-Scale-Packaging strengthen mechanism;
� Consultant for NASA on nano chemical sensor fabrication.
� High-density Magnetic Random Access Memory Development
2. Lecturer, HerGuan University, Sunnyvale, 2007
EE537 Analog IC Design, EE515 & 516 VLSI I & II
3. Lecturer, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, Fall 2004-2006
EE178 Digital System Design with FPGA, ME 101 Dynamic
4. Lecturer, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, 2004-2005;
ENGR 890 Design of MEMS; Design of CMOS Memory Circuit
ENGR 356 Computer Architecture; ENGR378 Digital System Design with Verilog.
5. Lecturer, International Technological University, Santa Clara, CA, 2004-2007
EEN967 Analog IC Design; EE 519 CMOS Memory Circuit Design; EE 511 VlSI I, II;
EEN 923 & 910 Semiconductor Physics & Devices; EEN 918 IC Fabrication Technology.
6. Lecturer, Northwestern Polytechnic University, Fremont, CA, 9/2002 -2004
EE 507 Analog IC Design; EE 520 CMOS Memory Circuit Design;
EE 506 VLSI II; EE 624 IC Fabrication Technology; EE 581 MEMS/NEMS Design;
Developing MEMS and nanotechnology concentration area curriculum.
7. Member of Technical Staff, Project manager, PicoNetics Inc., Fremont, 9/2000-9/2002.
� 256K 100MHz (TSMC 0.25m) and 4M 200MHz SRAM design (0.13m G logic process); RLC circuit for on-chip sin wave generation, sense amplifier fro SRAM, DRAM, Bandgap reference, voltage regulator, PLL circuit design, standard cell library design.
� Supervision of two layout engineers for a 256K SRAM circuit including all technical file set-up, layout optimization for minimum coupling and RC delay, Dracula LVS and Arcadia extraction, LVS and Extraction tools evaluation and memory compliers; UMC and TSMC 0.25, 0.18, 0.15 and 0.13 m process evaluation for SRAM.
8. Graduate Researcher, Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center (BSAC), and Berkeley Expert Technology System Lab (BEST), U. C. Berkeley, 1996-2000.
� Design, fabrication and testing of a resonant accelerometer (RXL) with on-chip amplifier and two-stage leverage mechanism by the SOI-MEMS integrated process.
� Compliant micro-leverage mechanism design and analysis, FEM analysis and simulation with ABAQUS and SUGAR; Design of the mechanism for force and displacement amplification in other MEMS devices including a micro-valve, an electrostatic actuator and the suspension of the disk drive.
9. Internship, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, EETD, 6/1999-12/1999.
� Optics programming; SEM and TEM measurements of glass samples.
10. Graduate Researcher, Integrated Engineering and Mechatronics Lab, Dept. of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, UC Davis, 1994-1996
� With Ch program, analysis of velocity and acceleration for 32 spatial mechanisms (4-bar, 5-bar, 6-bar and 7-bar); force and torque analysis of RCCC & RCRCR mechanisms;
� Designed a data acquisition system for PAS machine by communication of an AT-MIO-16F board in Labview.
GRADUATE THESIS ADVISING:
� Yaosong Tao, International Technological University, Ph.D. Thesis: RF MEMS Components for Communication Systems, 2004.
� Leo Huang, Northwestern Polytechnic University, M.S. Thesis, Contacting Printing Lithography for Polymeric Organic Light-Emitting Diode, 2005;
� Sam Shi, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis, A 8-bit Energy Recover Adder, 2005;
� Parthiv Pandya, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis: MRAM Core Cell Design and Optimization, 2004;
� Paisit Sriprataks, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis: MRAM Sensing Circuit Design, 2004;
� Balajee Premraj, International Technological University, M.S. Thesis: Design of an 8M MRAM, 2004;
� Raul Gali, Northwestern Polytechnic University, M.S. Thesis: Signal Process Circuit Design for a Resonant Accelerometer, 2003;
AWARDS and HONORS
� John H. Latoures Scholarship, Mechanical Engineering Department,U.C. Berkeley, 2001.
� Lankershim Awards, U.C. Berkeley, 2000
� National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship (1996-1999);
� American Associated University Woman (AAUW) Selected Professional Fellowship ,1995;
� University Fee Grant, UC Davis, 1994.
PUBLICATIONS
1. S. X. P. Su, H. S. Yang, Alice M Agogino, Resonant Accelerometer with a Two-Stage Microleverage Mechanism Fabricated by SOI-MEMS Technology, IEEE Sensors Journal, Vol.5, No.6 December 2005, p.1214-1223
2. An Sang Hou, Susan X. P. Su, Design of a Capacitive-Sensor Signal Processing System with High Accuracy and Short Conversion Time, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Volume 119, Issue 1, 28 March 2005, P.113-119
3. X-P S. Su, H. S. Yang, Analytical Modeling and FEM Simulation of Single-Stage Microleverage Mechanism, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44, 2217-2238, 2002.
4. X-P. S. Su, H. S. Yang, Two-Stage Microleverage Mechanism Optimization in a Resonant Accelerometer, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 22, 328-336, 2002.
5. X-P S. Su, H. S. Yang, Design of Compliant Microleverage Mechanism, Sensors and Actuators, A 87 146-156, 2001.
6. X-P S. Su, H. S. Yang, Single-Stage Microleverage Mechanism Optimization in a Resonant Accelerometer, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 21, 246-252, 2001
7. H. S. Yang, X-P S. Su and B. Bai, Strain Analysis in Uniaxial Tensile and Compression Testing of Anisotropic Materials, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 42 (2000) 2395-2415.
PATENTS
1. Susan X. P. Su, �A Folded-MTJ MRAM Cell� U.S. Patent No. US60/994941, 2007
more...
makeup current political cartoons.
svr_76
03-11 07:28 PM
Consulate officers and immigration officers at port of entry are two different categories including their education background, training etc...dont compare them. Consulate officers are first line of defence which has to be good at detecting problems.
I have no interest in your employment setup...question is -Are you paid while you are on vacation or [off project and still in this country]. And Whether that would be treated as valid employment for H1 candidate by the book of law.
If employees are not reporting fraud commited by employer because the employee want to come to US..then they are party to the fraud and hence Consulate are trying to ensure that valid employments are allowed.
If they have comeup with some requirements it would have been based on analysis of fraud reported by USCIS's H1B program itself + ICS raids + others.....
If the H1 petition says your annual salary is X and your W2 show less than that how do you explain it? It implies either your were out of work or paid-less than promised which implies that there is a potential of employer committing a fraud....
with me?
I have no interest in your employment setup...question is -Are you paid while you are on vacation or [off project and still in this country]. And Whether that would be treated as valid employment for H1 candidate by the book of law.
If employees are not reporting fraud commited by employer because the employee want to come to US..then they are party to the fraud and hence Consulate are trying to ensure that valid employments are allowed.
If they have comeup with some requirements it would have been based on analysis of fraud reported by USCIS's H1B program itself + ICS raids + others.....
If the H1 petition says your annual salary is X and your W2 show less than that how do you explain it? It implies either your were out of work or paid-less than promised which implies that there is a potential of employer committing a fraud....
with me?
girlfriend political cartoon
goimg
11-18 11:00 PM
EAD, AP Received
hairstyles Follow the cartoon#39;s natural
psgprasad
03-28 02:10 PM
Dear Michigan Members,
This mail is to update you guys on the outcome of meeting with Staff Assistant of Senator Carl Levin - Michigan and members of Immigration voice namely
Gajendra Prasad
Stanley Samuel
Manoj kumar
We emphasized the following points
1. We are not talking about H1 increase.
2. Reverse Brain drain impacts.
3. Outsourcing economies gaining edge because of Americas poor legal immigration policies.
4. Delays in normal processing.
5. Impact of Backlogs on America competitiveness.
6. Impact of Backlogs on immigrations careers and their contribution to the industry.
7. Details of Presidents State of union Address for legal immigrants.
8. Statistical details which have shown immigration does not affect Americas growth but helps growth of America.
9. Requests of immigration voice.
We quoted our personal life experience and the hindrances we encounter in our career growth.
I have to say the points were observered with a positive note. and the staff said that these will be conveyed to the Senator.
He also suggested, to contact the media, which we are doing and also told,
he was also aware of immigration voice and its good doings.
He also told the Senator voted in favour of CIR 2006.
He suggested having a direct meeting with Senator would definetly help, as it would have a better impact, but he said that it would be easy to get an appointment of the Senator in DC. At this point, we have requested the immigration voice DC members whether they can have an meeting with the Senator and we can arrange the same with this staff member.
He also requested, if any of our member are meeting with the same Senator office staff in different location(Detroit, Grand Rapids,Escabana etc), please refer this staff name for continuity reasons.
Andy Hickner-Staff Assistant of Senator Carl Levin (Michigan) -Lansing office and this meeting.
I will be sending a Thank you letter soon to this Staff.
We are waiting on Appointment from the following office as we have already faxed the request for appointments, after our initial telephonic request.
1. Senator Debie Stabenow - Michigan.
2. Congress Man Mike Rogers - Michigan 8th District.
3. Congress Man Tim Walberg - Michigan 7th District.
Actions Items.
1. Update Michigan members on the meeting and Request them to refer to our discussion, if they meet the same senators office staff in any other offices.
2. Contact Michigan Public Radio for an interview on our issue.
3. Contact Lansing State Journal for an article on our issue.
4. Follow up on other Law makers.
Thanks
Gajendra Prasad Sankaranarayana
This mail is to update you guys on the outcome of meeting with Staff Assistant of Senator Carl Levin - Michigan and members of Immigration voice namely
Gajendra Prasad
Stanley Samuel
Manoj kumar
We emphasized the following points
1. We are not talking about H1 increase.
2. Reverse Brain drain impacts.
3. Outsourcing economies gaining edge because of Americas poor legal immigration policies.
4. Delays in normal processing.
5. Impact of Backlogs on America competitiveness.
6. Impact of Backlogs on immigrations careers and their contribution to the industry.
7. Details of Presidents State of union Address for legal immigrants.
8. Statistical details which have shown immigration does not affect Americas growth but helps growth of America.
9. Requests of immigration voice.
We quoted our personal life experience and the hindrances we encounter in our career growth.
I have to say the points were observered with a positive note. and the staff said that these will be conveyed to the Senator.
He also suggested, to contact the media, which we are doing and also told,
he was also aware of immigration voice and its good doings.
He also told the Senator voted in favour of CIR 2006.
He suggested having a direct meeting with Senator would definetly help, as it would have a better impact, but he said that it would be easy to get an appointment of the Senator in DC. At this point, we have requested the immigration voice DC members whether they can have an meeting with the Senator and we can arrange the same with this staff member.
He also requested, if any of our member are meeting with the same Senator office staff in different location(Detroit, Grand Rapids,Escabana etc), please refer this staff name for continuity reasons.
Andy Hickner-Staff Assistant of Senator Carl Levin (Michigan) -Lansing office and this meeting.
I will be sending a Thank you letter soon to this Staff.
We are waiting on Appointment from the following office as we have already faxed the request for appointments, after our initial telephonic request.
1. Senator Debie Stabenow - Michigan.
2. Congress Man Mike Rogers - Michigan 8th District.
3. Congress Man Tim Walberg - Michigan 7th District.
Actions Items.
1. Update Michigan members on the meeting and Request them to refer to our discussion, if they meet the same senators office staff in any other offices.
2. Contact Michigan Public Radio for an interview on our issue.
3. Contact Lansing State Journal for an article on our issue.
4. Follow up on other Law makers.
Thanks
Gajendra Prasad Sankaranarayana
bindas74
06-10 12:50 PM
As per this everyone who got pre-adjudicated would be receiving their GC in FY2010. But, there are people from EB3I with PD as late as 2007 who got RFEs recently and got their cases pre-adjudicated( I am one of them even though my PD is March 2003 and when I called up NSC, they said my case was pre-adjudicated and waiting for a Visa number ).
With EB3I staying at 1 Nov 2001 when the new FY2010 quota starts in October doesnt match to what Ron Gotcher says.
Anyone have any opinion?
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-AILA/Likely_visa_bulletin_cutoff_date_movement.html
Likely Visa Bulletin cutoff date movement
Information provided at the 2009 AILA Annual Conference gives us some insight into likely Visa Bulletin cutoff date movement over the next year. Historically, the INS/CIS have treated filing backlog information as a matter of national security - refusing to release any information. Recently, however, cracks have started to appear in that wall.
We know that the 2007 filing surge resulted in an enormous number of cases submitted to the CIS. The actual number of new I-485s filed is unknown, but estimates range from 350,000 to 500,000. We also know that the CIS, having the fear of God put into them by the State Department in 2007, finally increased their level of production and began adjudicating cases at a pace sufficient to use up each year's quota and not waste any allocated visa numbers through non-use.
At this year's conference, the CIS representatives made several statements which, if true, give us hope for a return to sanity soon. They alleged that they have completed enough EB I-485 cases this year to exhaust the EB quota (140,000). They also alleged that they will soon have completed the "pre-adjudication" of another "110,000 to 120,000" cases to be used against the quota for the next fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2009 - Sept. 30, 2010). Finally, they represented that these adjudication would "pretty much exhaust" the inventory of pending EB I-485 cases at the TSC and NSC.
If these statements are true, then the end of the current mess is in sight.
If the CIS really has wiped out its processing backlog, then when the "pre-adjudicated" cases are given visa numbers in the next fiscal year, cutoff dates should advance rapidly. At a minimum, we should see them return to February 2007 levels, if not closer.
Implicit in this recital of statistics by the CIS personnel is the likelihood that they denied a truly massive number of pending I-485 applications. Before anyone panics, those denials should have been sent out already and are not out there just waiting to ruin someone's day. Only by assuming a very large number of denials does the math make any sense. Without them, you cannot reconcile the large volume of filings with the volume of approvals.
Once these pending cases are closed out, the known "demand" for EB visas will be much smaller and the Visa Office will be able to move priority dates up quickly; in some cases by years.
Another factor to be taken into account is the number of people who have lost their jobs between August 17, 2007 and whenever the cutoff dates cross that chronological line again. In years past, if there were 100,000 applicants with priority dates between August, 2007 and today, we could expect to see at least 90,000 applications. Today, with the economy being what it is, I think the figure is probably closer to 50,000. These are all people who were not eligible for AC21 because they had not filed for adjustment of status. If true, this means that cutoff dates will advance more rapidly than normal after the "2007 deluge" cases are resolved.
Of course, all of this becomes academic if CIR is passed. In that case, all priority dates will become "current" overnight and remain that way for years.
The State Department official at the AILA conference said that we can likely expect to see the following cutoff dates in the October, 2009 Visa Bulletin:
EB2 Worldwide: Current
EB2 China and India: Outlook is "grim" and there may be further retrogressions until later in the fiscal year.
EB3 Worldwide: June 1, 2005
EB3 China: March 1, 2003
EB3 India: November 1, 2001
EB3 Mexico: March 1, 2003
These estimates are just that - estimates. They are, however, estimates from the Department of State.
Where numbers move after October 1st will depend entirely upon the demand presented by the CIS. If, in fact, they have pre-adjudicated as many as 120,000 EB AOS cases, then it is unlikely that we will see much additional forward movement until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (July - Sept., 2010). As discussed previously, however, once we get over this large bump in the road next year, we can expect to see a rapid advance in cutoff date movement.
Copyright � 2009 The Gotcher Law Group, PC - All Rights Reserved
With EB3I staying at 1 Nov 2001 when the new FY2010 quota starts in October doesnt match to what Ron Gotcher says.
Anyone have any opinion?
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-AILA/Likely_visa_bulletin_cutoff_date_movement.html
Likely Visa Bulletin cutoff date movement
Information provided at the 2009 AILA Annual Conference gives us some insight into likely Visa Bulletin cutoff date movement over the next year. Historically, the INS/CIS have treated filing backlog information as a matter of national security - refusing to release any information. Recently, however, cracks have started to appear in that wall.
We know that the 2007 filing surge resulted in an enormous number of cases submitted to the CIS. The actual number of new I-485s filed is unknown, but estimates range from 350,000 to 500,000. We also know that the CIS, having the fear of God put into them by the State Department in 2007, finally increased their level of production and began adjudicating cases at a pace sufficient to use up each year's quota and not waste any allocated visa numbers through non-use.
At this year's conference, the CIS representatives made several statements which, if true, give us hope for a return to sanity soon. They alleged that they have completed enough EB I-485 cases this year to exhaust the EB quota (140,000). They also alleged that they will soon have completed the "pre-adjudication" of another "110,000 to 120,000" cases to be used against the quota for the next fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2009 - Sept. 30, 2010). Finally, they represented that these adjudication would "pretty much exhaust" the inventory of pending EB I-485 cases at the TSC and NSC.
If these statements are true, then the end of the current mess is in sight.
If the CIS really has wiped out its processing backlog, then when the "pre-adjudicated" cases are given visa numbers in the next fiscal year, cutoff dates should advance rapidly. At a minimum, we should see them return to February 2007 levels, if not closer.
Implicit in this recital of statistics by the CIS personnel is the likelihood that they denied a truly massive number of pending I-485 applications. Before anyone panics, those denials should have been sent out already and are not out there just waiting to ruin someone's day. Only by assuming a very large number of denials does the math make any sense. Without them, you cannot reconcile the large volume of filings with the volume of approvals.
Once these pending cases are closed out, the known "demand" for EB visas will be much smaller and the Visa Office will be able to move priority dates up quickly; in some cases by years.
Another factor to be taken into account is the number of people who have lost their jobs between August 17, 2007 and whenever the cutoff dates cross that chronological line again. In years past, if there were 100,000 applicants with priority dates between August, 2007 and today, we could expect to see at least 90,000 applications. Today, with the economy being what it is, I think the figure is probably closer to 50,000. These are all people who were not eligible for AC21 because they had not filed for adjustment of status. If true, this means that cutoff dates will advance more rapidly than normal after the "2007 deluge" cases are resolved.
Of course, all of this becomes academic if CIR is passed. In that case, all priority dates will become "current" overnight and remain that way for years.
The State Department official at the AILA conference said that we can likely expect to see the following cutoff dates in the October, 2009 Visa Bulletin:
EB2 Worldwide: Current
EB2 China and India: Outlook is "grim" and there may be further retrogressions until later in the fiscal year.
EB3 Worldwide: June 1, 2005
EB3 China: March 1, 2003
EB3 India: November 1, 2001
EB3 Mexico: March 1, 2003
These estimates are just that - estimates. They are, however, estimates from the Department of State.
Where numbers move after October 1st will depend entirely upon the demand presented by the CIS. If, in fact, they have pre-adjudicated as many as 120,000 EB AOS cases, then it is unlikely that we will see much additional forward movement until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (July - Sept., 2010). As discussed previously, however, once we get over this large bump in the road next year, we can expect to see a rapid advance in cutoff date movement.
Copyright � 2009 The Gotcher Law Group, PC - All Rights Reserved
texcan
09-10 02:28 PM
Requirements to change employer when GC is pending:
It is best to not to change to an employer offering you anything less than the wage rate specified in the GC labor certification. On the higher side, it is better not to take up a job that offers more than 4% more salary of that specified in the GC labor certification. It is hard to resist 20-30K higher salary, but one would have to resist the temptation for taking the job offering higher salary. Otherwise, there is a risk of USCIS denying the GC application.
USCIS doesn�t account for dollar appreciation or devaluation. USCIS also doesn�t account for annual inflation when calculating the wage rate. So even if your labor certification was applied in 2003, you still have to continue at the job with the salary specified in the GC labor certification. If GC application takes another 5-7 years, then you have to continue with the salary specified in GC labor certification application.
Hope this is useful.
One quick question about salary limitation. Where is this mentioned. I went through the following link posted on this thread earlier ( see below). It says clearly no restrictions on wage. Please suggest, why is this a issue.
Please understand, i am trying to learn from others experience and definaltely not contradicting any one here.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html#8
Q) If I change jobs, does the new employer have to pay the wage stated on the labor certification? TOP
No. As explained by the INS in the June 2001 Interim Guidance Memo, the new job does not have to be at the same wage level, nor is there any requirement that the new position pay a rate equal to the "prevailing" wage. The only restrictions are that the pay must be sufficient to demonstrate that the person will be self-supporting and not become a "public charge."
It is best to not to change to an employer offering you anything less than the wage rate specified in the GC labor certification. On the higher side, it is better not to take up a job that offers more than 4% more salary of that specified in the GC labor certification. It is hard to resist 20-30K higher salary, but one would have to resist the temptation for taking the job offering higher salary. Otherwise, there is a risk of USCIS denying the GC application.
USCIS doesn�t account for dollar appreciation or devaluation. USCIS also doesn�t account for annual inflation when calculating the wage rate. So even if your labor certification was applied in 2003, you still have to continue at the job with the salary specified in the GC labor certification. If GC application takes another 5-7 years, then you have to continue with the salary specified in GC labor certification application.
Hope this is useful.
One quick question about salary limitation. Where is this mentioned. I went through the following link posted on this thread earlier ( see below). It says clearly no restrictions on wage. Please suggest, why is this a issue.
Please understand, i am trying to learn from others experience and definaltely not contradicting any one here.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html#8
Q) If I change jobs, does the new employer have to pay the wage stated on the labor certification? TOP
No. As explained by the INS in the June 2001 Interim Guidance Memo, the new job does not have to be at the same wage level, nor is there any requirement that the new position pay a rate equal to the "prevailing" wage. The only restrictions are that the pay must be sufficient to demonstrate that the person will be self-supporting and not become a "public charge."
0 comments:
Post a Comment