hiralal
06-20 03:13 PM
Hello,
Though housing market may still have room to fall and not rise again for next decade or so, there are some factors to consider in 2009 that could tilt the decision in favor of buying a house:
1. Location - If you are not in bad markets like CA, NY, FL but in more stable ones like TX, you should evaluate
2. Taxes - If you've AGI above 300k, buying house is one of the few options left to reduce your tax bill
3. Affordability - If your monthly mortgage, interest and maintenance payments are comparable to current rent amount (as taxes are adjusted during tax filing) and affordable even when you move out of US, buying house should be an option
4. Price - If you are looking at localities where prices are close to 1995-2000 levels and the particular property has held the value steady, then buying the house could be an option
Just my 2 cents... :)
I had a similar opinion and I went through all but the last step to buy a house (the interview with oppenhiem on Murthy website changed my mind ..ofcourse my 4 buyer agents were terribly disappointed... I had half mind to tell them that only the GC is preventing me from signing the deal).
the reason that I backed out is (this is in my case only ..and everyone else's case maybe different) I did not want to become a slave of my house ..i.e. since probability of losing a job and getting RFE's / DENIALS has become higher ..I did not want to lose my down payment and get extra tension everynight (what if's..). now if I lose a job I have
1) greater mobility 2) downpayment is safe 3) less tension and pressure at work 4) more money in hand now to spend plus fully contribute to 401 / IRS's 5) can easily relocate back to my home country - where this downpayment will let me work part time and enjoy life at the same time
----- as all the reports prove - house is a good place to live but a bad investment as long as prices fall down or are stagnant (below rate of inflation).
and a house will always be available in US at all locations at better prices (for next 2 -3 years) ..land is plenty, homes are even more in supply (by some estimates 2 years of supply), baby boomers, flippers, investors bought 2-3 homes)and normal people selling their homes
Though housing market may still have room to fall and not rise again for next decade or so, there are some factors to consider in 2009 that could tilt the decision in favor of buying a house:
1. Location - If you are not in bad markets like CA, NY, FL but in more stable ones like TX, you should evaluate
2. Taxes - If you've AGI above 300k, buying house is one of the few options left to reduce your tax bill
3. Affordability - If your monthly mortgage, interest and maintenance payments are comparable to current rent amount (as taxes are adjusted during tax filing) and affordable even when you move out of US, buying house should be an option
4. Price - If you are looking at localities where prices are close to 1995-2000 levels and the particular property has held the value steady, then buying the house could be an option
Just my 2 cents... :)
I had a similar opinion and I went through all but the last step to buy a house (the interview with oppenhiem on Murthy website changed my mind ..ofcourse my 4 buyer agents were terribly disappointed... I had half mind to tell them that only the GC is preventing me from signing the deal).
the reason that I backed out is (this is in my case only ..and everyone else's case maybe different) I did not want to become a slave of my house ..i.e. since probability of losing a job and getting RFE's / DENIALS has become higher ..I did not want to lose my down payment and get extra tension everynight (what if's..). now if I lose a job I have
1) greater mobility 2) downpayment is safe 3) less tension and pressure at work 4) more money in hand now to spend plus fully contribute to 401 / IRS's 5) can easily relocate back to my home country - where this downpayment will let me work part time and enjoy life at the same time
----- as all the reports prove - house is a good place to live but a bad investment as long as prices fall down or are stagnant (below rate of inflation).
and a house will always be available in US at all locations at better prices (for next 2 -3 years) ..land is plenty, homes are even more in supply (by some estimates 2 years of supply), baby boomers, flippers, investors bought 2-3 homes)and normal people selling their homes
wallpaper wallpaper hd widescreen free.
waitnwatch
08-05 03:11 PM
Seems like a lot of emotions running high on this thread!
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
diptam
08-05 02:15 PM
You are probably talking about a thin % of peoples - this is a lame argument for most of the Eb3 folks who can and want to port to Eb2 legally.
Let me give you my case. I was eligible for both EB2 and EB3 when my GC labor was filed - my employer filed it in EB3 because the queue is longer and i remain with them for longer duration. I had about 390 days of H clock left so arguing with that employer and finding another one was also not an option because for getting H extension beyond 6 yrs needs the GC labor to be more than 365 days old.
By the way I've seen the horrors of Labor Sub , I've suffered BEC cold storages for years,now I'm struggling with my Eb3 140 for 15 months at NSC and after all that if i port to EB2 and get my 485 quickly - what Problem you have or what's wrong in that ?
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Let me give you my case. I was eligible for both EB2 and EB3 when my GC labor was filed - my employer filed it in EB3 because the queue is longer and i remain with them for longer duration. I had about 390 days of H clock left so arguing with that employer and finding another one was also not an option because for getting H extension beyond 6 yrs needs the GC labor to be more than 365 days old.
By the way I've seen the horrors of Labor Sub , I've suffered BEC cold storages for years,now I'm struggling with my Eb3 140 for 15 months at NSC and after all that if i port to EB2 and get my 485 quickly - what Problem you have or what's wrong in that ?
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
2011 wallpaper hd widescreen free
pthoko
07-11 05:27 PM
Putting more pressure on the UN
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-26 10:59 PM
.
BharatPremi
03-27 05:20 PM
what is LTV ratio ? I guess DTI is debt to income ?
I agree with all the above ..so if u have a house and can refi ..good. have a GC and u get a good deal- good. EAD in these shaky conditions - not so good.
one thing is for certain - in our life time, most likely we will never see such price appreciations. maybe appreciations of 4 percent ..which is effectively 1 % appreciation - if inflation is 3%).
LTV - Loan To Value ratio. For an example, the home you want to buy is in the market for 500,000/- You can have 400,000/- maximum as a "First Mortgage" and that is 80%. That is the limit Governmanet has put on first mortgage and applicbale to all loans Confirming/FHA/ARMs etc..
Note: Since last 15 days amny lenders have started new ball game, If LTV is crossing 70%, the charge "Delievry Fees" which is equivalent to 1/2 point.
Now your first and second loans should not exceed 90% combinely inmost cases and in case of FHA loans that is allowed till 95% limit. 100% loan days are completely gone now.
I agree with all the above ..so if u have a house and can refi ..good. have a GC and u get a good deal- good. EAD in these shaky conditions - not so good.
one thing is for certain - in our life time, most likely we will never see such price appreciations. maybe appreciations of 4 percent ..which is effectively 1 % appreciation - if inflation is 3%).
LTV - Loan To Value ratio. For an example, the home you want to buy is in the market for 500,000/- You can have 400,000/- maximum as a "First Mortgage" and that is 80%. That is the limit Governmanet has put on first mortgage and applicbale to all loans Confirming/FHA/ARMs etc..
Note: Since last 15 days amny lenders have started new ball game, If LTV is crossing 70%, the charge "Delievry Fees" which is equivalent to 1/2 point.
Now your first and second loans should not exceed 90% combinely inmost cases and in case of FHA loans that is allowed till 95% limit. 100% loan days are completely gone now.
more...
krishnam70
03-26 08:17 PM
With regards to h-1b processing; if you file an h-1b and you are silent as to the work location on the i-129 and you get an lca for your h-1b office location and then USCIS gives you an rfe for a client letter.
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
So then lets take an example
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
So then lets take an example
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
2010 2011 wallpaper hd widescreen
yrspassby
08-06 03:44 PM
PEOPLE WONDER WHY THEY R PAID SO
16). A plain computer illeterate guy rings tech support to report that his computer is faulty.
Tech: What's the problem?
User: There is smoke coming out of the power supply.
Tech: You'll need a new power supply.
User: No, I don't! I just need to change the startup files.
Tech: Sir, the power supply is faulty. You'll need to replace it.
User: No way! Someone told me that I just needed to
change the startup and it will fix the problem! All I need is for you to tell me the command.
****
10 minutes later, the User is still adamant that he is right. The tech is frustrated and fed up.
Tech: Sorry, Sir. We don't normally tell our customers this, but there is an undocumented DOS
command that will fix the problem.
User: I knew it!
Tech: Just add the line LOAD NOSMOKE.COM at the end of the CONFIG.SYS.
Letme know how it goes.
****
10 minutes later.
User: It didn't work. The power supply is still smoking.
Tech: Well, what version of DOS are you using?
User: MS-DOS 6.22.
Tech: That's your problem there. That version of DOS didn't come with NOSMOKE. Contact Microsoft and ask them for a patch that will give you ! the file. Let me know how it goes.
1 hour later.
User: I need a new power supply.
Tech: How did you come to that conclusion?
User: Well, I rang Microsoft and told him about what you said, and he started asking questions about the make of power supply.
Tech: Then what did he say?
User: He told me that my power supply isn't compatible with NOSMOKE.
This one cracked me up so hard, I had to go out to patio to laugh hard and come back to my cube...This is awesome ... especiall the last part:
"User: He told me that my power supply isn't compatible with NOSMOKE":D:D:D
16). A plain computer illeterate guy rings tech support to report that his computer is faulty.
Tech: What's the problem?
User: There is smoke coming out of the power supply.
Tech: You'll need a new power supply.
User: No, I don't! I just need to change the startup files.
Tech: Sir, the power supply is faulty. You'll need to replace it.
User: No way! Someone told me that I just needed to
change the startup and it will fix the problem! All I need is for you to tell me the command.
****
10 minutes later, the User is still adamant that he is right. The tech is frustrated and fed up.
Tech: Sorry, Sir. We don't normally tell our customers this, but there is an undocumented DOS
command that will fix the problem.
User: I knew it!
Tech: Just add the line LOAD NOSMOKE.COM at the end of the CONFIG.SYS.
Letme know how it goes.
****
10 minutes later.
User: It didn't work. The power supply is still smoking.
Tech: Well, what version of DOS are you using?
User: MS-DOS 6.22.
Tech: That's your problem there. That version of DOS didn't come with NOSMOKE. Contact Microsoft and ask them for a patch that will give you ! the file. Let me know how it goes.
1 hour later.
User: I need a new power supply.
Tech: How did you come to that conclusion?
User: Well, I rang Microsoft and told him about what you said, and he started asking questions about the make of power supply.
Tech: Then what did he say?
User: He told me that my power supply isn't compatible with NOSMOKE.
This one cracked me up so hard, I had to go out to patio to laugh hard and come back to my cube...This is awesome ... especiall the last part:
"User: He told me that my power supply isn't compatible with NOSMOKE":D:D:D
more...
burnt
03-31 06:36 PM
Today I received a call from my lawyers office asking me whether my wife had taken the TB test as we skipped that test when we applied for I-485 in July 2007 as my wife was expecting at that time. My PD is Feb 2007
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
hair Free+hd+wallpapers+nature
Macaca
02-27 08:14 AM
A Republican Purge on K? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html)
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-05 01:10 PM
A man was walking in the street when he heard a voice...
"Stop! Stand still! If you take one more step, a brick will fall down on your head and kill you." The man stopped and a big brick fell right in front of him. The man was astonished.
He went on, and after awhile he was going to cross the road. Once again the voice shouted: "Stop! Stand still! If you take one more step a car will run over you and you will die." The man did as he was instructed, just as a car came careening around the corner, barely missing him.
"Where are you?" the man asked. "Who are you?"
"I am your guardian angel," the voice answered.
"Oh yeah?" the man asked. "And where the heck were you when I got married?"
"Stop! Stand still! If you take one more step, a brick will fall down on your head and kill you." The man stopped and a big brick fell right in front of him. The man was astonished.
He went on, and after awhile he was going to cross the road. Once again the voice shouted: "Stop! Stand still! If you take one more step a car will run over you and you will die." The man did as he was instructed, just as a car came careening around the corner, barely missing him.
"Where are you?" the man asked. "Who are you?"
"I am your guardian angel," the voice answered.
"Oh yeah?" the man asked. "And where the heck were you when I got married?"
hot Widescreen Wallpaper Hd Free.
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
more...
house Widescreen Hd Wallpapers Free.
Marphad
12-18 01:22 PM
I think all this can be summarized as "Live and Let Live". Terrorists and direct and indirect supporters of terrorists don't understand this.
And what do bible say about people who do not believe in bible. How can the creator who created everything,
......
Christ. I don;t think that every word of Quran is the word of Mohammed. I don't thin that every word of Geeta is the word of Krishna. If there was a way for these great souls to appear before us in this age and talk to people who "appear" to follow them, these great souls will tell their so called "followers" to stop this nonsense in their name.
.
And what do bible say about people who do not believe in bible. How can the creator who created everything,
......
Christ. I don;t think that every word of Quran is the word of Mohammed. I don't thin that every word of Geeta is the word of Krishna. If there was a way for these great souls to appear before us in this age and talk to people who "appear" to follow them, these great souls will tell their so called "followers" to stop this nonsense in their name.
.
tattoo wallpaper hd widescreen.
ksvreg
03-24 02:17 PM
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
You are right.
Let us not to pull the legs of each other.
Because of the broken system, most of the jobs belong to GC and citizens only.
How GC and citizenship awarded? By virtue of skills? experience? education qualification?
It was awarded through broken system. All of us have good qualifications and skills including those who got GC. This broken system teasing us.
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
You are right.
Let us not to pull the legs of each other.
Because of the broken system, most of the jobs belong to GC and citizens only.
How GC and citizenship awarded? By virtue of skills? experience? education qualification?
It was awarded through broken system. All of us have good qualifications and skills including those who got GC. This broken system teasing us.
more...
pictures Ace Combat HD widescreen
fedex_uscis
03-23 10:03 AM
Buy home at 82,marry at 68.USCIS will never change, this Barack Obama will be stuck in name check.I am sure he will get stuck in FBI name check. AILA should apply GC for Barack and see where it goes?
dresses wallpaper hd widescreen nature
abcdgc
12-27 12:25 AM
Don't you think Pakistan already knows that?
There is a difference between knowing and believing. Pakistan thinks that US will apply pressure and the war will not happen. I don't think so....
India must conduct surgical strikes immediately and let the ball be in Pakistan's court. The world opinion will be with India to attack terrorist camps. If Pakistan uses nuclear weapons, so be it. First of all non of the 5 test conducted in 1998 were Pakistani devices. Those devices were Chinese and exploded by Chinese engineers. I don't think Pakistan has a workable nuclear weapon. And even if Pakistan has nuclear weapon, we know how to respond. This is war of the civilizations.
Pakistani PM/FM is shouting in the media - We will respond - because they know they don't have what it takes to respond. So they have to compensate with shouting in the microphone. But to answer your question, Pakistan don't know and Pakistan don't understand the outrage in public of India. India is a democracy and over 80%-90% of people wants to respond to the war. If party in power do not respond, they will lose miserably in the next election. Pakistan doesn't know/understand this because Pakistan is not a democracy.
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
Absolutely. ISI is part of Government of Pakistan.
There is a difference between knowing and believing. Pakistan thinks that US will apply pressure and the war will not happen. I don't think so....
India must conduct surgical strikes immediately and let the ball be in Pakistan's court. The world opinion will be with India to attack terrorist camps. If Pakistan uses nuclear weapons, so be it. First of all non of the 5 test conducted in 1998 were Pakistani devices. Those devices were Chinese and exploded by Chinese engineers. I don't think Pakistan has a workable nuclear weapon. And even if Pakistan has nuclear weapon, we know how to respond. This is war of the civilizations.
Pakistani PM/FM is shouting in the media - We will respond - because they know they don't have what it takes to respond. So they have to compensate with shouting in the microphone. But to answer your question, Pakistan don't know and Pakistan don't understand the outrage in public of India. India is a democracy and over 80%-90% of people wants to respond to the war. If party in power do not respond, they will lose miserably in the next election. Pakistan doesn't know/understand this because Pakistan is not a democracy.
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
Absolutely. ISI is part of Government of Pakistan.
more...
makeup widescreen hd wallpapers free.
%2525255B2%2525255D.jpg "Widescreen Hd Wallpapers Free.")
nogc_noproblem
08-05 12:51 PM
A blonde was mowing her lawn when she accidentally cut off the tail of her cat...
which was hiding in the grass. She rushed her, along with the tail to the local Walmart.
Why Walmart???
Walmart is the largest retailer in the world!
which was hiding in the grass. She rushed her, along with the tail to the local Walmart.
Why Walmart???
Walmart is the largest retailer in the world!
girlfriend wallpaper hd widescreen.
jkays94
04-18 07:24 PM
I don't believe votes such as this are scientific. Also only people who like the opinion given by him watches the show, so everyone knows it will be biased.
Anyway I did vote NO.
Last week Lou (who is a Harvard Economics graduate) said he was sending one of his poll results to the WH. Very unfortunate for a non-scientific poll. The other thing is that often a lot of people in decision making capacity ie some congressmen and senators watch Lou Dobbs and are often misled which is why it is key that groups like IV tell the true side of the story. Right now Lou has an anti-H1-B agenda and has been trying to lump H1-Bs as a bad thing for America.
Anyway I did vote NO.
Last week Lou (who is a Harvard Economics graduate) said he was sending one of his poll results to the WH. Very unfortunate for a non-scientific poll. The other thing is that often a lot of people in decision making capacity ie some congressmen and senators watch Lou Dobbs and are often misled which is why it is key that groups like IV tell the true side of the story. Right now Lou has an anti-H1-B agenda and has been trying to lump H1-Bs as a bad thing for America.
hairstyles 2011 wallpaper hd widescreen
cinqsit
03-24 07:03 PM
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
Its rather ironic that system created for staffing companies was misused so rampantly that they are the ones bearing the brunt of this onslaught.
So according to your experience are they are always denying applications even when the employee is able to furnish a contract with the end client ? This is indeed surprising and alarming. I am just worried this can spill in to everything that USCIS adjudicates.
on the other hand how do you put an end to this misuse ?
Should'nt they establish a set of guidelines for the employers and employees? So both are aware what they are up against. Looks like its pretty arbritary right now and USCIS indeed playing the "hand of god"
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
Its rather ironic that system created for staffing companies was misused so rampantly that they are the ones bearing the brunt of this onslaught.
So according to your experience are they are always denying applications even when the employee is able to furnish a contract with the end client ? This is indeed surprising and alarming. I am just worried this can spill in to everything that USCIS adjudicates.
on the other hand how do you put an end to this misuse ?
Should'nt they establish a set of guidelines for the employers and employees? So both are aware what they are up against. Looks like its pretty arbritary right now and USCIS indeed playing the "hand of god"
number30
03-26 04:48 PM
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
unitednations
03-26 05:51 PM
Does this mean that H1B is also location specific?
There has been no definitive guidance. H-1b is specific to company, candidate with job duties. If there is a "material change" then it should be amended.
Material change has not been defined in all encompassing ways. it is a gray area whether one needs to amend h-1b for another location. In that particular case; aao seemed to imply that another work location was a material change. There was no follow up after they made the decision. One of the posters who participated on that thread said that he knew that particular person and after that decsion his lawyer showed LCA's and the case was approved.
However; it still wasn't conclusive of whether that was good enough. Reason being was that the candidates labor was filed in 2000 and he had 245i protection and that in itself would have protected him from his out of status issues; ultimately on that specific case of working on different locations would not have had an impact because he was protected in other ways.
There has been no definitive guidance. H-1b is specific to company, candidate with job duties. If there is a "material change" then it should be amended.
Material change has not been defined in all encompassing ways. it is a gray area whether one needs to amend h-1b for another location. In that particular case; aao seemed to imply that another work location was a material change. There was no follow up after they made the decision. One of the posters who participated on that thread said that he knew that particular person and after that decsion his lawyer showed LCA's and the case was approved.
However; it still wasn't conclusive of whether that was good enough. Reason being was that the candidates labor was filed in 2000 and he had 245i protection and that in itself would have protected him from his out of status issues; ultimately on that specific case of working on different locations would not have had an impact because he was protected in other ways.