OK...I was skeptical about NOV processing...but no more
- Thread starter Jaic
- Start date
No he has not changed company
I can get more details Monday............
but he is from a consulting firm based in Boston, working down here in Florida. Same as myself (i am rd 01/09/02)
VSC is definately processing November..Thank God
What I have seen that it is becoming very common for VSC issue this RFE for Paystubs etc. SIZE OF THE COMPANY DOES NOT MATTER
I can get more details Monday............
but he is from a consulting firm based in Boston, working down here in Florida. Same as myself (i am rd 01/09/02)
VSC is definately processing November..Thank God
What I have seen that it is becoming very common for VSC issue this RFE for Paystubs etc. SIZE OF THE COMPANY DOES NOT MATTER
Last edited by a moderator:
WheresMahGreen
Registered Users (C)
Paystubs RFE and all that....
What's interesting about the RFE's is that the INS (or, DHS) seem to be focussing on making sure that the beneficiary is being paid what was indicated in the labor certification without a concern to the economy nor the person's ability to have progressed within the company. It would make more sense if they ensured complaince while processing applications within a reasonable time frame. However, since they don't keep their end of the bargain, how do they expect someone to be drawing a salary that was estimated over two years ago? Even if we adjust the salary for just annual increases in inflation, we would have a figure that is higher than the one stated in the labor certification.
While they may choose to argue that the position indicated in the labor certification is of a permanent nature and therefore should be treated as one, their inability to actually pick up the case within a reasonable time makes this precondition null and void. I wonder why AILA or anybody else with teeth have refused to address this issue strongly with INS.
For instance, consider this, if the labor certification takes over a year (as it is today), 140 around 6 to 8 months and the 485 over 14 months, how can they, in their right minds, expect the person to wallow in the same post and draw the same salary as indicated nearly three years ago? Don't you guys think that there is something seriously wrong with this picture?
With the companies tightening their belts when it ocmes to spending, employees are expected to be more productive -- in other words, the companies want to do more work with less people. Under such circumstances, the fewer employees who are retained by the companies are entitled for more pay and a better sounding title with a lot more responsibility. While the employer may have intended to work the employee as per what was stated in the labor certiification, current economic situation and the overall general trend for a mature economy to improve on its productivity may force the employer to give out bigger chunks of responsibilities and, hopefully, a matching pay structure for the concerned employee.
If the INS expects the employee to work for the, now outdated, wages stated in the labor certification, are they ready to face the flipside of the coin whereby the employer maybe subject to violations of labor laws which dictate wages to employees that match their skillset and responsibilities they undertake?
What's interesting about the RFE's is that the INS (or, DHS) seem to be focussing on making sure that the beneficiary is being paid what was indicated in the labor certification without a concern to the economy nor the person's ability to have progressed within the company. It would make more sense if they ensured complaince while processing applications within a reasonable time frame. However, since they don't keep their end of the bargain, how do they expect someone to be drawing a salary that was estimated over two years ago? Even if we adjust the salary for just annual increases in inflation, we would have a figure that is higher than the one stated in the labor certification.
While they may choose to argue that the position indicated in the labor certification is of a permanent nature and therefore should be treated as one, their inability to actually pick up the case within a reasonable time makes this precondition null and void. I wonder why AILA or anybody else with teeth have refused to address this issue strongly with INS.
For instance, consider this, if the labor certification takes over a year (as it is today), 140 around 6 to 8 months and the 485 over 14 months, how can they, in their right minds, expect the person to wallow in the same post and draw the same salary as indicated nearly three years ago? Don't you guys think that there is something seriously wrong with this picture?
With the companies tightening their belts when it ocmes to spending, employees are expected to be more productive -- in other words, the companies want to do more work with less people. Under such circumstances, the fewer employees who are retained by the companies are entitled for more pay and a better sounding title with a lot more responsibility. While the employer may have intended to work the employee as per what was stated in the labor certiification, current economic situation and the overall general trend for a mature economy to improve on its productivity may force the employer to give out bigger chunks of responsibilities and, hopefully, a matching pay structure for the concerned employee.
If the INS expects the employee to work for the, now outdated, wages stated in the labor certification, are they ready to face the flipside of the coin whereby the employer maybe subject to violations of labor laws which dictate wages to employees that match their skillset and responsibilities they undertake?
I am not sure, but I think that they are looking to see if your salary is equal to or above what was filed. They want to make sure that you are not working for 20K and posting a position that is much higher.
It make sense to look at salary and yes you are correct that it is hard to maintain it after being in the process for 3 years... but as long as you make the same or higher then you will be fine.
Just my two cents...
It make sense to look at salary and yes you are correct that it is hard to maintain it after being in the process for 3 years... but as long as you make the same or higher then you will be fine.
Just my two cents...
I don't think INS will deny you application because you are making MORE money than before. They may get in your case (no pun intended) if you are making LESS.
Actually, I know personally 3 cases of recent approvals with RFEs for pay stubs (07/2002, and 2 on 09/2002) where the applicants were making a lot more money than stated on Labor Cert. and there was no problem. 2 cases in Vermont 1 in California.
---------
RD 11/15/2001
ND 12/10/2001
FP 03/22/2002
AD waiting…
Actually, I know personally 3 cases of recent approvals with RFEs for pay stubs (07/2002, and 2 on 09/2002) where the applicants were making a lot more money than stated on Labor Cert. and there was no problem. 2 cases in Vermont 1 in California.
---------
RD 11/15/2001
ND 12/10/2001
FP 03/22/2002
AD waiting…
I do not think INS is starting Nov cases unless there is at least one approval posted with Nov RD (Dec ND) from a member here. Not for friend's case but for his own case. Many people confuse with RD and ND and Oct RD normally has Nov ND.
I don't think right now there is any evidence showing that INS is working on Nov. case. I am a Nov. filer too, but please do not be over-optimistic. Let the INS first clear all the Sept. and Oct. back logs.
I don't think right now there is any evidence showing that INS is working on Nov. case. I am a Nov. filer too, but please do not be over-optimistic. Let the INS first clear all the Sept. and Oct. back logs.