lghtslpr
02-13 04:40 PM
Personalised emails will add lot off value, sending mass faxes would create more business for Fellowes in selling more shredder. I woud request u to think again before you guys spam the offices
I've been told by senators' aids that letters, faxes and email all have an impact. Politicians do not read them all, of course, but their aids summarize volume and content for them. I was told specifically that written letters carry more weight than emails, because they represent greater effort by the sender.
-L.
I've been told by senators' aids that letters, faxes and email all have an impact. Politicians do not read them all, of course, but their aids summarize volume and content for them. I was told specifically that written letters carry more weight than emails, because they represent greater effort by the sender.
-L.
wallpaper Artist: Jennifer Lopez feat.
veni001
06-07 01:08 PM
I am surprised with this thread. There is no Deadline for employemnt based GC (this was mentioned by Sen. Robert (Bob) Men�ndez,NJ when requesting to move the FB deadline which is clearly mentioned in the bill as May 01, 2005) . Please read the summary and text carefully.
Summary:
First five years
Total number of merit-based green cards includes sum of:
a.) First five fiscal years have same number of green cards as made available to EB category in 2005. This number is 246,878.
b.) Any visa number not used by family based category.
How the total number will be divided between Current system and new merit-based system and Y visa holders --
- 10,000 (or more) reserved for exceptional aliens under �Y� visa category.
- 90,000 (exactly 90,000 � not more not less) for backlogged (pending or approved I-140 applications). Currently, this number is 140,000.
- Remaining possibly goes to new merits system. Until the merits system is ready for accepting petitions, the Y visa holders probably get a shot at this since the clause says �No more than 10,000� � leaving room to let it go up from 10,000 to whatever is left.
and the TEXT of the Bill
�(A) for the first five fiscal years shall be equal to the
33 number of immigrant visas made available to aliens
34 seeking immigrant visas under section 203(b) of this
35 Act for fiscal year 2005, plus any immigrant visas
36 not required for the class specified in (c), of which:
37 (i) at least 10,000 will be for exceptional aliens
38 in nonimmigrant status under section
39 101(a)(15)(Y); and
40 (ii) 90,000 will be for aliens who were the
41 beneficiaries of an application that was pending
42 or approved at the time of the effective date of
43 this section, per Section 502(d) of the [Insert
44 title of Act] ( Act not the bill)
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.�The amendments made by this section shall take
11 effect on the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of
12 enactment.
So a bill becomes law only after signed by the president, and the effective date could be Oct 01, 2007 if not Oct 01, 2008.
So all the I-140 filed on of before Effective date are considered as pending!!
I don't know why even lawyers are getting confused here!:confused:
Summary:
First five years
Total number of merit-based green cards includes sum of:
a.) First five fiscal years have same number of green cards as made available to EB category in 2005. This number is 246,878.
b.) Any visa number not used by family based category.
How the total number will be divided between Current system and new merit-based system and Y visa holders --
- 10,000 (or more) reserved for exceptional aliens under �Y� visa category.
- 90,000 (exactly 90,000 � not more not less) for backlogged (pending or approved I-140 applications). Currently, this number is 140,000.
- Remaining possibly goes to new merits system. Until the merits system is ready for accepting petitions, the Y visa holders probably get a shot at this since the clause says �No more than 10,000� � leaving room to let it go up from 10,000 to whatever is left.
and the TEXT of the Bill
�(A) for the first five fiscal years shall be equal to the
33 number of immigrant visas made available to aliens
34 seeking immigrant visas under section 203(b) of this
35 Act for fiscal year 2005, plus any immigrant visas
36 not required for the class specified in (c), of which:
37 (i) at least 10,000 will be for exceptional aliens
38 in nonimmigrant status under section
39 101(a)(15)(Y); and
40 (ii) 90,000 will be for aliens who were the
41 beneficiaries of an application that was pending
42 or approved at the time of the effective date of
43 this section, per Section 502(d) of the [Insert
44 title of Act] ( Act not the bill)
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.�The amendments made by this section shall take
11 effect on the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of
12 enactment.
So a bill becomes law only after signed by the president, and the effective date could be Oct 01, 2007 if not Oct 01, 2008.
So all the I-140 filed on of before Effective date are considered as pending!!
I don't know why even lawyers are getting confused here!:confused:
tnite
06-26 10:09 AM
what happens if the passport gets stamped and got a new I94 in the vancouver airport and no inspection after coming back to US.
what should we enter as last entry into us
Then put the Vancouver visit as the last entry.
what should we enter as last entry into us
Then put the Vancouver visit as the last entry.
2011 Jennifer Lopez Feat. Pitbull
rampaadh@hotmail.com
05-18 08:37 AM
I have received my Green card & My wifes green card during March. But I did not receive my daughter's (2 yrs old) green card even though it was approved
by Immigration on Feb 24th. I received welcome letter also during March.
When I called the USCIS helpdesk number, they said it was mailed to my address on Feb 28th and it might have been lost and I need to apply for I-90 to get replacement card.
There is no tracking number also. They also said my daughter can use valid AP to enter to USA.
Today I made an appointment through INFO PASS and talked to Immigration officer. He also said the same thing and also added that a Bio-metrics should be taken along with I-90 for my kid.
My daughter is currently in India and planning to come back on July4th. She has a valid advance parole till Jan 2012. But the officer told that she can not enter to USA with Advance parole since her GC was approved. He asked me to contact local US embassy to get some travel document so that she can travel.
I am confused now. Did anyone faced such situation ?
by Immigration on Feb 24th. I received welcome letter also during March.
When I called the USCIS helpdesk number, they said it was mailed to my address on Feb 28th and it might have been lost and I need to apply for I-90 to get replacement card.
There is no tracking number also. They also said my daughter can use valid AP to enter to USA.
Today I made an appointment through INFO PASS and talked to Immigration officer. He also said the same thing and also added that a Bio-metrics should be taken along with I-90 for my kid.
My daughter is currently in India and planning to come back on July4th. She has a valid advance parole till Jan 2012. But the officer told that she can not enter to USA with Advance parole since her GC was approved. He asked me to contact local US embassy to get some travel document so that she can travel.
I am confused now. Did anyone faced such situation ?
more...
sodh
07-24 10:17 PM
Thanks for the responses.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get an affidavit signed by a magistrate from your country which has the corrected names, the Lawyers will have the format for that.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get an affidavit signed by a magistrate from your country which has the corrected names, the Lawyers will have the format for that.
amit79
04-16 08:03 AM
USCIS started sending notifications for Premium Processing petitioners on 15th April, 2008. As we start receiving notifications, a lot of H1B petitioners using IV are waiting to hear from USCIS, this thread can help keep the information in one place and provide quick access to the current status of notifications. Those received their notifications from USCIS can put in the results in the following format
Quota - General/Higher
Premium Processing - Yes/No
Notification Date - xx/xx/xx
Receipt Number - Yes/No
Waiting List - Yes/No
Notified via - email/postal mail
Employer - Consultant/Company
Multiple Petitions - Yes/No
Comments - you can put any extra comments that are relevant
Good Luck.
Quota - General/Higher
Premium Processing - Yes/No
Notification Date - xx/xx/xx
Receipt Number - Yes/No
Waiting List - Yes/No
Notified via - email/postal mail
Employer - Consultant/Company
Multiple Petitions - Yes/No
Comments - you can put any extra comments that are relevant
Good Luck.
more...
sparky_jones
09-15 12:52 PM
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Congrats. Good to see an EB3-I approval. This is something we get to see rarely here. Hope you are able to celebrate with your family soon!
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Congrats. Good to see an EB3-I approval. This is something we get to see rarely here. Hope you are able to celebrate with your family soon!
2010 On the Floor (feat. Pitbull)
amslonewolf
05-11 02:06 PM
http://www.visalaw.com/teleconform.html
Please post and email this question at the above teleconf..
I already did.
Please post and email this question at the above teleconf..
I already did.
more...
mdmd10
09-11 03:59 PM
Just voted. I am still waiting for a miracle.
hair Title: On The Floor ft Pitbull
va_dude
07-20 06:08 PM
Let us know what you find out from your subsequent calls or infopass appointments.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hot Download Jennifer Lopez Feat
waitingnwaiting
12-06 08:54 AM
Facebook offers Rs 70 lakh job to IITian - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/careers/job-trends/Facebook-offers-Rs-70-lakh-job-to-IITian/articleshow/7041790.cms)
Facebook offers Rs 70 lakh job to IITian
Read more: Facebook offers Rs 70 lakh job to IITian - The Times of India IIT student gets Rs 70 lakh job offer from Facebook - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/jobs/IIT-student-gets-Rs-70-lakh-job-offer-from-Facebook/articleshow/7040500.cms#ixzz17LNjLY3d)
CHENNAI/MUMBAI: Facebook on Friday recruited one of its addicts from India. The website, which recently logged its 500 millionth active citizen, made an offer of about Rs 70 lakh for a posting in the United States, which has created a buzz on all IIT campuses where annual placements are on.
In the last three days, no other company, domestic or foreign, has come close to offering this kind of a compensation package.
While Facebook is still interviewing more IITians, the student in question, who gives his name as DKS � he is to graduate from the school of computer science and engineering at IIT-Kharagpur in 2011 and doesn't want his full name to be revealed � has received a '' join-us'' post from the website.
On his wall, DKS announces how he is hooked to Facebook, which cuts his day by half. He now knows that the social networking site, known as the Big Boss of the web-world, will eat up his days.
On the offer letter, officials from IIT-Kharagpur said Facebook offered a starting salary of $90,000, a relocation bonus of $10,000 and a one-time signing amount of $25,000 to the 21-year-old from Jamshedpur. But on the Kharagpur campus, students said DKS had also been offered ESOPs and the entire offer translates to about Rs 1.7 crore.
However, sources in the placement cell did not confirm this. DKS, whose father is a government employee, has in his time at IIT interned as a research assistant at the University of British Columbia and at Microsoft India.
Interviews were on till late Friday at IIT-Madras where Facebook shortlisted 10 students. But, after several rounds of interviews, it did not select anyone from IIT-Delhi. Close to 30 students were placed from IIT-B on Friday.
At IIT-Madras, the highest domestic offer on Friday came from Transocean, which offered Rs 28 lakh and the high point of the day was when Intel offered positions to 30 students.
At IIT-B, Tower Research which offered jobs to six students, was among the high paying companies. Several financial institutions � Goldman Sachs, Bank of American, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, Capital One � have made a come back after lying low in the recessionary years.
N Ramesh Babu, adviser (training and placement), IIT Madras, is both excited as well as in a dilemma of sorts with 250-odd recruiters comprising a mix of old and new economy having lined up in close slots till end-January 2011.
''We are in a position where, say, after 20 days you may not have enough students for recruitment. We have not been able to give dates for some companies.
Most companies which hire here, will also be going to the other IITs,'' he said. In the last two days, IIT-Delhi too has seen 110 students being offered jobs
Read more: Facebook offers Rs 70 lakh job to IITian - The Times of India IIT student gets Rs 70 lakh job offer from Facebook - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/jobs/IIT-student-gets-Rs-70-lakh-job-offer-from-Facebook/articleshow/7040500.cms#ixzz17LNmHU7H)
Facebook offers Rs 70 lakh job to IITian
Read more: Facebook offers Rs 70 lakh job to IITian - The Times of India IIT student gets Rs 70 lakh job offer from Facebook - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/jobs/IIT-student-gets-Rs-70-lakh-job-offer-from-Facebook/articleshow/7040500.cms#ixzz17LNjLY3d)
CHENNAI/MUMBAI: Facebook on Friday recruited one of its addicts from India. The website, which recently logged its 500 millionth active citizen, made an offer of about Rs 70 lakh for a posting in the United States, which has created a buzz on all IIT campuses where annual placements are on.
In the last three days, no other company, domestic or foreign, has come close to offering this kind of a compensation package.
While Facebook is still interviewing more IITians, the student in question, who gives his name as DKS � he is to graduate from the school of computer science and engineering at IIT-Kharagpur in 2011 and doesn't want his full name to be revealed � has received a '' join-us'' post from the website.
On his wall, DKS announces how he is hooked to Facebook, which cuts his day by half. He now knows that the social networking site, known as the Big Boss of the web-world, will eat up his days.
On the offer letter, officials from IIT-Kharagpur said Facebook offered a starting salary of $90,000, a relocation bonus of $10,000 and a one-time signing amount of $25,000 to the 21-year-old from Jamshedpur. But on the Kharagpur campus, students said DKS had also been offered ESOPs and the entire offer translates to about Rs 1.7 crore.
However, sources in the placement cell did not confirm this. DKS, whose father is a government employee, has in his time at IIT interned as a research assistant at the University of British Columbia and at Microsoft India.
Interviews were on till late Friday at IIT-Madras where Facebook shortlisted 10 students. But, after several rounds of interviews, it did not select anyone from IIT-Delhi. Close to 30 students were placed from IIT-B on Friday.
At IIT-Madras, the highest domestic offer on Friday came from Transocean, which offered Rs 28 lakh and the high point of the day was when Intel offered positions to 30 students.
At IIT-B, Tower Research which offered jobs to six students, was among the high paying companies. Several financial institutions � Goldman Sachs, Bank of American, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, Capital One � have made a come back after lying low in the recessionary years.
N Ramesh Babu, adviser (training and placement), IIT Madras, is both excited as well as in a dilemma of sorts with 250-odd recruiters comprising a mix of old and new economy having lined up in close slots till end-January 2011.
''We are in a position where, say, after 20 days you may not have enough students for recruitment. We have not been able to give dates for some companies.
Most companies which hire here, will also be going to the other IITs,'' he said. In the last two days, IIT-Delhi too has seen 110 students being offered jobs
Read more: Facebook offers Rs 70 lakh job to IITian - The Times of India IIT student gets Rs 70 lakh job offer from Facebook - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/jobs/IIT-student-gets-Rs-70-lakh-job-offer-from-Facebook/articleshow/7040500.cms#ixzz17LNmHU7H)
more...
house Jennifer Lopez - On The Floor
arnet
10-31 04:05 PM
my lawyer said that if anyone uses EAD to work or planning to use EAD soon (not H1B) then it is better to apply for EAD renewal before 6 months of current one expires. If you are in H1B not planning to use EAD even in future then you can renew it 3-4 months before expiry.
tattoo jennifer lopez on the floor
MSCapBust
07-18 03:52 PM
I have a few questions and much thanks for those who answer.
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
more...
pictures jennifer lopez ft pitbull on
rajeshbillabong
09-23 11:52 PM
Hi guys,
My wife's F-1 stamping visa got rejected (IInd time)in India, though she had H-4 to F-1 approved here in US by USCIS.
We really want the OPT option that F-1 gives.
Once she is back to US on H-4, is there any way that we can get the OPT since she has been maintaining her full time intl. status?
Can we do a lawyer since the embassy is "wrong" in denying the visa since USCIS already approved it and she has only one sem. remaining.
We are very worried. Please help.
best regards,
Rajesh
My wife's F-1 stamping visa got rejected (IInd time)in India, though she had H-4 to F-1 approved here in US by USCIS.
We really want the OPT option that F-1 gives.
Once she is back to US on H-4, is there any way that we can get the OPT since she has been maintaining her full time intl. status?
Can we do a lawyer since the embassy is "wrong" in denying the visa since USCIS already approved it and she has only one sem. remaining.
We are very worried. Please help.
best regards,
Rajesh
dresses images Jennifer Lopez feat.
amit_sp
07-16 09:29 AM
Hello: Here's the original article.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118455917060167397-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0NjUxNTY5Wj.html
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118455917060167397-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0NjUxNTY5Wj.html
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
more...
makeup Jennifer Lopez feat Pitbull
hawkeye1
11-14 06:09 PM
If a labor is applied in EB3 category and later 140 is applied under eb2(bs+5 year experince and salary range). Will there be any complications after invoking AC21?
Thanks!
Thanks!
girlfriend Jennifer Lopez,Pitbull
krishnam70
07-17 06:19 PM
might serve IV community better if we contribute for funds...
Good job IV. We should not rest now and carry forward with the actual agenda of IV.
Good job IV. We should not rest now and carry forward with the actual agenda of IV.
hairstyles Jennifer Lopez Feat Pitbull
mlkedave
03-10 10:18 AM
alright guys it look like this battle is dead... should we close the thing and put it in completed battles or u guys want to keep it up a while longer?
lee.cook
January 30th, 2008, 01:03 PM
Hello,
What type of camera are you looking for?
Point-and-shoot or a dSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex).
The Sony Cybershoot is just your average P&S camera, small, light and compact.
A dSLR for example, like the Nikon D40 or the Canon EOS 350D are dSLR type and are much bigger in size but deliver alot higher quality images.
Nikon D40 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/images/d40-right-950.jpg
Canon EOS 350D http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon350D/images/Canon350D_main.jpg
What is your price budget too?
What type of camera are you looking for?
Point-and-shoot or a dSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex).
The Sony Cybershoot is just your average P&S camera, small, light and compact.
A dSLR for example, like the Nikon D40 or the Canon EOS 350D are dSLR type and are much bigger in size but deliver alot higher quality images.
Nikon D40 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/images/d40-right-950.jpg
Canon EOS 350D http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon350D/images/Canon350D_main.jpg
What is your price budget too?
bestia
07-17 03:12 AM
Wow, I feel you. I've been in such situation. How big your company is? Whose lawyer is taking care of your case - yours or employer's? Try to contact the lawyer directly. Do you know if any violation regarding working conditions your employer has? If they are on shaky ground, you can be more aggressive with them. You can have several ways of pushing them.
Maybe it's late for you now. But after my first employer's games, when I joined my second employer I demanded at the very beginning that I will have my lawyer and everything will go through him. Only when I got my H1b through my lawyer I joined them.
When I placed my "two weeks notice" my ex-boss was walking after me, begging not to leave. When I left, they threatened me with lawsuits. Never filed any after I mentioned him about hiring illegaly few guys and pointing on some other violations they had.
Maybe it's late for you now. But after my first employer's games, when I joined my second employer I demanded at the very beginning that I will have my lawyer and everything will go through him. Only when I got my H1b through my lawyer I joined them.
When I placed my "two weeks notice" my ex-boss was walking after me, begging not to leave. When I left, they threatened me with lawsuits. Never filed any after I mentioned him about hiring illegaly few guys and pointing on some other violations they had.
No comments:
Post a Comment