15 minutes ago, Akkumm_Bakkumm said:

Myvisajobs lo 104 members unnattu undi kani chala varaku transfer ayyi kuda undochu... 5 people unna kuda aa families ithe kashtapadali kada...

cheptunna kada vayya...maa frndgadu same company...daridram bagoni timelo join ayyadu,,,ee employergadu sarigga timeki pay cheyatledu ani andaru jump kodtune untaru...asalu maa vadiki telsina max employees less 10 unnaru adee 2011 timelo...ippdudu max 2-3 anta

3 minutes ago, mettastar said:

usual ga 1month lo OMB approve chesthundi.. and this scenario comes under Compelling situation.. so vellu EAD apply cheyachu naku telisi

Attorneys tho confirm chesukondi ee situation ni 

24 minutes ago, mettastar said:

this comes under compelling situation

how man? ee anglelo idi compelling situation?

4 minutes ago, idibezwada said:

cheptunna kada vayya...maa frndgadu same company...daridram bagoni timelo join ayyadu,,,ee employergadu sarigga timeki pay cheyatledu ani andaru jump kodtune untaru...asalu maa vadiki telsina max employees less 10 unnaru adee 2011 timelo...ippdudu max 2-3 anta

Yeah seems true. H1's year ki 40-50 apply chesadu kaani , GC's matram only 2. That confirms everyone moved . But not sure about OPT's count.

5 minutes ago, 1Nenokkadine said:

thanks for info baa 

OMB approve chesaka implementation date H4-EAD ki aithe 2months after unde.

5 minutes ago, mettastar said:

OMB approve chesaka implementation date H4-EAD ki aithe 2months after unde.

asalu idi compelling situation ela avtadi?...okavela aina ippudu EAD rule approve ayyi implement avvadaniki 2-3 months padtadi kada,,,apatdaka ee company employees paristhiti enti?

46 minutes ago, yomama said:

 papam enni families unayo ipdu problem lo, already litigation undi anta court lo, so ipdu employees sangathi enti? amendments file cheskodame na? unanni rojulu vadiki katti untaru money, ipdu over night motham vere company ki marala? and more over pay ela run chestaru papam e two months? assam ye na . varni okadi kakruthi ki inta mandi families balitaya darunam va. 

company change chestaru... only problem GC line lo kastha venakakipotharu...

Asalu job a pothadante GC la gurinchi aalochinche time undadu..

GC lu ani chinchukunedi.. job lo pani matta lenollu. migithavallaki job nilabadithe salu ra devuda anukuntaru...

so they r not in any problem..

24 minutes ago, idibezwada said:

how man? ee anglelo idi compelling situation?

“Compelling Circumstances” Requirement

One factor that will severely reduce eligibility for the I-140 EAD is that, to qualify, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of “compelling circumstances that justify an independent grant of employment authorization.” The proposed rule does not define “compelling circumstances.” However, it does list several circumstances that potentially would qualify, including:

• Serious illness or disability to the worker and/or a dependent family member

• Employer retaliation, such as where a dispute arises with one’s employer who is engaged in illegal activity, followed by retaliation against the employee

• Other substantial harm to the applicant (This includes the inability to maintain status resulting in substantial harm to the applicant or family without continued work authorization. The example provided is someone working in a high-tech, industry-specific position when the employer goes out of business. In that case, if the worker can establish that the same / similar industry does not exist in the individual’s home county, and that the lack of employment would cause substantial hardship, this may be sufficient.)

• Significant disruption to the employer (For example, an H1B worker is conducting important biomedical research for a cap-exempt employer. The funding for the project unexpectedly changes to a cap-subject institution. If the H1B worker who is engaged in this critical research has not been counted against the H1B cap, it may be possible for the foreign national to apply for an EAD as a temporary measure to allow the work to continue.)

Just now, mettastar said:

“Compelling Circumstances” Requirement

One factor that will severely reduce eligibility for the I-140 EAD is that, to qualify, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of “compelling circumstances that justify an independent grant of employment authorization.” The proposed rule does not define “compelling circumstances.” However, it does list several circumstances that potentially would qualify, including:

• Serious illness or disability to the worker and/or a dependent family member

• Employer retaliation, such as where a dispute arises with one’s employer who is engaged in illegal activity, followed by retaliation against the employee

• Other substantial harm to the applicant (This includes the inability to maintain status resulting in substantial harm to the applicant or family without continued work authorization. The example provided is someone working in a high-tech, industry-specific position when the employer goes out of business. In that case, if the worker can establish that the same / similar industry does not exist in the individual’s home county, and that the lack of employment would cause substantial hardship, this may be sufficient.)

• Significant disruption to the employer (For example, an H1B worker is conducting important biomedical research for a cap-exempt employer. The funding for the project unexpectedly changes to a cap-subject institution. If the H1B worker who is engaged in this critical research has not been counted against the H1B cap, it may be possible for the foreign national to apply for an EAD as a temporary measure to allow the work to continue.)

intaki 140 ead vastunda raada?

11 minutes ago, idibezwada said:

asalu idi compelling situation ela avtadi?...okavela aina ippudu EAD rule approve ayyi implement avvadaniki 2-3 months padtadi kada,,,apatdaka ee company employees paristhiti enti?

i donno vuncle.. i'm not suggesting them to wait for the rule to be implemented. Just throwing ideas vuncle.. I think I read this situation as one of the compelling situation. 

1 minute ago, mettastar said:

“Compelling Circumstances” Requirement

One factor that will severely reduce eligibility for the I-140 EAD is that, to qualify, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of “compelling circumstances that justify an independent grant of employment authorization.” The proposed rule does not define “compelling circumstances.” However, it does list several circumstances that potentially would qualify, including:

• Serious illness or disability to the worker and/or a dependent family member

• Employer retaliation, such as where a dispute arises with one’s employer who is engaged in illegal activity, followed by retaliation against the employee

• Other substantial harm to the applicant (This includes the inability to maintain status resulting in substantial harm to the applicant or family without continued work authorization. The example provided is someone working in a high-tech, industry-specific position when the employer goes out of business. In that case, if the worker can establish that the same / similar industry does not exist in the individual’s home county, and that the lack of employment would cause substantial hardship, this may be sufficient.)

• Significant disruption to the employer (For example, an H1B worker is conducting important biomedical research for a cap-exempt employer. The funding for the project unexpectedly changes to a cap-subject institution. If the H1B worker who is engaged in this critical research has not been counted against the H1B cap, it may be possible for the foreign national to apply for an EAD as a temporary measure to allow the work to continue.)

Gattiga kottesam. Jai Balayya.

3 minutes ago, mettastar said:

“Compelling Circumstances” Requirement

One factor that will severely reduce eligibility for the I-140 EAD is that, to qualify, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of “compelling circumstances that justify an independent grant of employment authorization.” The proposed rule does not define “compelling circumstances.” However, it does list several circumstances that potentially would qualify, including:

• Serious illness or disability to the worker and/or a dependent family member

• Employer retaliation, such as where a dispute arises with one’s employer who is engaged in illegal activity, followed by retaliation against the employee

• Other substantial harm to the applicant (This includes the inability to maintain status resulting in substantial harm to the applicant or family without continued work authorization. The example provided is someone working in a high-tech, industry-specific position when the employer goes out of business. In that case, if the worker can establish that the same / similar industry does not exist in the individual’s home county, and that the lack of employment would cause substantial hardship, this may be sufficient.)

• Significant disruption to the employer (For example, an H1B worker is conducting important biomedical research for a cap-exempt employer. The funding for the project unexpectedly changes to a cap-subject institution. If the H1B worker who is engaged in this critical research has not been counted against the H1B cap, it may be possible for the foreign national to apply for an EAD as a temporary measure to allow the work to continue.)

looks like you missed the red one

2 minutes ago, idibezwada said:

looks like you missed the red one

Attorney will take care of that 

5 minutes ago, mettastar said:

“Compelling Circumstances” Requirement

One factor that will severely reduce eligibility for the I-140 EAD is that, to qualify, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of “compelling circumstances that justify an independent grant of employment authorization.” The proposed rule does not define “compelling circumstances.” However, it does list several circumstances that potentially would qualify, including:

• Serious illness or disability to the worker and/or a dependent family member

• Employer retaliation, such as where a dispute arises with one’s employer who is engaged in illegal activity, followed by retaliation against the employee

• Other substantial harm to the applicant (This includes the inability to maintain status resulting in substantial harm to the applicant or family without continued work authorization. The example provided is someone working in a high-tech, industry-specific position when the employer goes out of business. In that case, if the worker can establish that the same / similar industry does not exist in the individual’s home county, and that the lack of employment would cause substantial hardship, this may be sufficient.)

• Significant disruption to the employer (For example, an H1B worker is conducting important biomedical research for a cap-exempt employer. The funding for the project unexpectedly changes to a cap-subject institution. If the H1B worker who is engaged in this critical research has not been counted against the H1B cap, it may be possible for the foreign national to apply for an EAD as a temporary measure to allow the work to continue.)

idi jarigee panena

Just now, mettastar said:

Attorney will take care of that 

naa questionki ans cheyla...ippudu aa rule pass ayyedaka ee company employees emcheyyali?