houston2005
03-05 09:30 PM
We cannot justify the opposition to price increase as INS expects the fees to be paid by employer. So if needed employers can oppose not the employees. Only fees the candidates expect to pay is citizenship fees and all other immigration related fees should be paid by Employers as they are sponsoring gc
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
wallpaper music symbols tattoos.
copsmart
02-20 08:44 PM
You are not alone�
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
skagitswimmer
April 6th, 2005, 12:14 PM
This is a very useful thread!
Has anyone tried using the multiple mask technique to expand dept of field rather than (or in addition to) dynamic range? Might have to soften the edge of the mask but in principle it should work, using one photo set to near focus and the other to infinity. Obvioiusly a tripod would be essential. For non-manual focus lenses one could toggle the infinity focus on/off.
Has anyone tried using the multiple mask technique to expand dept of field rather than (or in addition to) dynamic range? Might have to soften the edge of the mask but in principle it should work, using one photo set to near focus and the other to infinity. Obvioiusly a tripod would be essential. For non-manual focus lenses one could toggle the infinity focus on/off.