Thanks to Rajivji - my citizenship journey
Very good news.
I got my citizenship on Jan. 21,2016 in a timeline of 5 months.
Major credit goes to Rajivji and his team for valuable advice.
Very good news.
I got my citizenship on Jan. 21,2016 in a timeline of 5 months.
Major credit goes to Rajivji and his team for valuable advice.
We won this case by submitting evidence of this applicant's substantial publication record as well as numerous recommendation letters which outlined the innovative work performed by the applicant. In addition, referees described the applicant as "one of the best in the field" for his significant discoveries in the biological chemistry industry. The applicant was employed with a very prestigious research institute which only hires the top scientists in the world.
We won this case for an applicant with over sixteen years research experience. She had a substantial publication record. Her expertise was sought for a collaboration with top researchers from the industry. Her contributions to research and academics and her significant international recognition were described in detail in the ten exceptional recommendation letters.
We were able to provide evidence of this individual's membership in a prestigious professional society, international honors and numerous letters of recommendation from industries leading scientists. This individual acted as a judge of the work of his research peers. We were able to provide 15 letters of recommendation reflecting the innovative work performed by this applicant. We also provided evidence to show the extensive citations of his findings.
We won this case by providing strong recommendation letters and evidence of U.S. government support of this applicant's innovative research. His previous scholarly publications and impressive presentations were just a few key elements to his unique background. The FAA in particular was interested in the creative talents of this applicant.
We won this case for the applicant who had eleven years teaching and research experience. Recommendation letters indicated that the applicant had a superb knowledge of not only theory but also economic technique. The applicant was highly regarded by students, peers and experts in the field. He was frequently called upon to review for the top, world-renowned journals in economics.
We won this case for the applicant utilizing nine strong recommendation letters from sources around the world which included field experts as well as industry.
We won this case for an applicant with over thirteen years research and teaching experience. His extraordinary talents and unique background as well as his vast knowledge in econometrics was shown by use of over six detailed recommendation letters. This applicant had an extensive publication record and was frequently asked to present at international conferences.
We won this case based on the applicant's critical role in a key U.S. Air Force project. His level of expertise in this specialized field was highly sought after and necessary to achieve the military's objectives. We provided letters from experts in the Air Force stressing their need to keep the applicant on the project or else it would fail.
We won this case for a tenured-track professor with ten years research and teaching experience. The applicant was a critical component to a U.S. Department of Energy funded project. The applicant was also the key element to securing National Science Foundation funds for his employer. His vast knowledge of inorganic chemistry and his unique multidisciplinary background was proven throughout his numerous recommendation letters offered by experts around the world.
We won this case for the applicant who is considered a leading expert in international affairs, particularly Indo-Chinese relations. We utilized eight detailed recommendation letters which highlighted the importance of this applicant's vast knowledge on China and his outstanding expertise on nonproliferation and security affairs. He had over twenty publications on this critical topic at the time of filing.
We won this case stressing the international scope of the extraordinary work that this applicant had done over the course of many years. He was identified by experts around the world as belonging to the top 5% of scientists in his field. His innovative and pioneering work was admired by his research peers around the globe. Many U.S. educational institutes were seeking his services as a research professor. This applicant was "invited" to present his research findings on countless occasions to an audience of the top researchers in the world.
We won this case by providing evidence of the impact of the work this applicant was conducting in her field. Numerous referees provided detailed recommendation letters outlining the necessity for the continued efforts of this applicant. Her teaching capabilities were noted as being far superior to others in her field. This applicant's unique background was shown to be scarce in the United States.
The physician group I'm talking with are looking to hire me on to work alongside them, and they would not actually pay me a direct salary. I would bill insurance for each patient seen, and the practice would take a certain percentage and give me the rest. Would this be allowed? Or do I have to actually receive a salary from the future employer? My understanding is that as long as the potential employer can show the ability to pay the prevailing wage via a business income tax return, that is all that is needed. Whether or not I actually get paid and how much I get paid once the green card is approved, is irrelevant, correct?
First of all generally speaking, for H-1 and for green card your salary cannot include terms that are variable. So for instance if you get a yearly bonus, but the bonus changes from year to year you cannot include that as a part of your salary. Salary cannot include per diem. A lot of companies and a lot of employees get stuck with a lot of problems because per diem is set up as part of the salary. Per diem is not salary. Benefits are not salary. So all three of these items are big problems when you talk about H-1 and green card salaries.
test
Discussion Topics, Thursday, 28 January 2016:
FAQ: Conversion from H-1 to H-4 EAD and back to H-1 – H-1 quota; L-1B converting to H-1B change of status and quota; H-1 duration through a new employer after I-140 approved – starting a new green card – do job titles and job descriptions have to match; Reapplying for a B-2 visa after denial – importance of income; Filing B visa to maintain status – H-1 and H-1 extension durations when I-140 is approved – when I-140 is revoked – time USCIS takes to revoke an I-140; Visas for starting a restaurant business franchise in the USA.
Other: Changing jobs after returning on N-470; PERM approval after MTR/Appeal on harmless error/typo; Consequences of old employer withdrawing I-140; Limit on number of times one can apply for H-1; Porting priority date from an approved I-140 that was revoked for error; Entering to do business on a prior approved B-2 visa; L-1A and PERM based green cards; H-1 quota based upon prior approval.
NPWC Processing Times (as of 12/08/2015
We won this case for the applicant based on his exceptional research record evident by his numbers of publications and invited presentations. At the time of filing, the applicant's research work had been cited over 100 times which is indicative of the high-quality, highly regarded work that he does. Referees noted that this applicant was one of the very small percentage of scientists who achieve the highest level of success in their given field.
We won a case for National Interest Waiver for a Physician working in a medically underserved area. We provided a five year contract, copy of his J-1 Waiver approval, numerous experience letters, a letter from the Department of State and documentation to reflect statistics of health professional shortage in the area.
We won this case as the applicant was noted to be a critical component to the success of various projects and had a very large impact on the research program. Referees described this applicant's talents to be rare and difficult to replace by U.S. workers. Her original and pioneering research made her uniquely qualified to further this intrinsically important research which greatly effected the nation as a whole.
We won this case for the applicant who had over twelve years research and teaching experience. He was considered a critical component to the success of his current project. At the time of filing, the applicant had over 22 publications in prestigious, international scholarly journals. The applicant's significant contributions had been cited by other renowned researchers in his field. His Ph.D. work was highly regarded and noted to be admired by several leading experts.
This applicant had over twelve years of research experience. We noted the applicant's international reputation in the fourteen recommendation letters submitted. The applicant was a member of a prestigious professional society membership of which requires noted achievements in the field. We provided evidence of the extensive presentations the applicant made due to his level of expertise in the field.
I have completed 3 years on my initial H1B. My employer applied for extension but it was denied saying Specialty occupation not met. My I-94 has expired and I was out of status. My employerhired Rajiv S Khanna for filing H1 extension again in PP along with MTR. This new H1 extension is approved along with I-94 which has corrected my out of status period. It was miracle and was only possible because of Rajiv S Khanna & team (Kalpana, Fran). They have great knowledge and experience in dealing with immigration issues. I am so thankful to them for their great service and I proudly recommend them to all. Rajiv, Kalpana & Fran - YOU ARE THE BEST! Thank you :)