| Author | Message | ||
     Paga_babai_paga Junior Artist Username: Paga_babai_paga Post Number: 967 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 69.162.71.156 Rating: N/A |
Dha mamaa, Mee vaadu separate time sheets, weekly status calla MOM etc lanti documentation maintain chesthee okay. ee roju maa friend okathaniki H1 extension approve ayyindi. Inko friend next week apply chesthunnadu. Nayaanaa Admin naa office, Home IP lu unban seyyi. Adi adigi neersam vachhi Naa siggi loo ee reqest eduthunnaa. Nuvvu Ban tesesthee idee place loo neku thanks sebuthaaa naa comments edthaaa. | ||
| Paga_babai_paga Junior Artist Username: Paga_babai_paga Post Number: 966 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 67.159.44.103 Rating: N/A |
who will have direct clients? most of us contractors, the end client will not file H1 for contractors , he doen't need full time employers, He wants consultants for few months to do the work Mostly the compaines like infy wipro etc will benifit, all others are gone Form past 6 months they are looking for this docs. According to them most of the RFEs are related to those 11 questions. From past six months if your company is getting H1s then it would be the same form here onwards. My employer is putting Time sheets and MOM emails etc in the documentation. So this EE issues is not new and not too dangerous to contractors. Only thing is employer need to maintain more documentation. Nayaanaa Admin naa office, Home IP lu unban seyyi. Adi adigi neersam vachhi Naa siggi loo ee reqest eduthunnaa. Nuvvu Ban tesesthee idee place loo neku thanks sebuthaaa naa comments edthaaa. | ||
| Dhaarkaar Hero Username: Dhaarkaar Post Number: 18331 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 68.100.147.118 Rating: N/A |
my scenario - Employer - Me - Official Vendor - CLient....ilanti situations lo ela vuntadhi.. | ||
| Xxx Junior Artist Username: Xxx Post Number: 292 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 65.12.151.250 Rating: N/A |
Yes as long as EE is good | ||
| Paga_babai_paga Junior Artist Username: Paga_babai_paga Post Number: 964 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 67.159.44.103 Rating: N/A |
One more IMP one. ee rojee maa friend ki H1 extnesion approve ayyindi. Inko friend next week loo apply cheyabithunnadu. Manam ankunnatha BAD gaa emi ledu situvation. So No issues. Nayaanaa Admin naa office, Home IP lu unban seyyi. Adi adigi neersam vachhi Naa siggi loo ee reqest eduthunnaa. Nuvvu Ban tesesthee idee place loo neku thanks sebuthaaa naa comments edthaaa. | ||
| Xxx Junior Artist Username: Xxx Post Number: 291 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 65.12.151.250 Rating: N/A |
who will have direct clients? most of us contractors, the end client will not file H1 for contractors , he doen't need full time employers, He wants consultants for few months to do the work Mostly the compaines like infy wipro etc will benifit, all others are gone | ||
| Paga_babai_paga Junior Artist Username: Paga_babai_paga Post Number: 963 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 67.159.44.103 Rating: N/A |
this newsletter from my friends company's law firm intends to clear some of the fears that we had in mind. As per them, this new notice will better the H1b process instead of harming it, by making it clear to the employers that they need to provide a strong proof of employer-employee relationship. That would hopefully result in less no. of RFEs. Nayaanaa Admin naa office, Home IP lu unban seyyi. Adi adigi neersam vachhi Naa siggi loo ee reqest eduthunnaa. Nuvvu Ban tesesthee idee place loo neku thanks sebuthaaa naa comments edthaaa. | ||
| Paga_babai_paga Junior Artist Username: Paga_babai_paga Post Number: 962 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 67.159.44.103 Rating: N/A |
STANDARDS FOR THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP Till date in determining what constitutes an legitimate employer/employee relationship, USCIS has relied upon 1) common law principles and 2) two leading U.S. Supreme court cases. Typically as per common law rules which the USCIS partly relies upon, the USCIS focuses on the "hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished." Other factors the USCIS looks upon to determine whether an employer/employee relationship exists include" the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party, the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in the business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party. I do wish to point out that since the last few years our law firm, when faced with requests for evidence focusing on worksites etc., has cited case law directly on the employer-employee relationship at the beginning of all RFEs. We have been submitting evidence of the relationship via employer-employee contract, among other items along with the case law to ensure the USCIS understands that the petitioner has the viable employer-employee relationship. This has been the basic point mentioned and discussed before discussing other issues in our RFE responses. Hence we welcome additional guidance to respond to the RFEs which will only bolster H1b petitions. Our clients need not be intimidated, rather they should view this memo as enlightening as it provides further guidance in processing the H-1b petitions. The main issue the USCIS seems to focus on is the issue of "right of control". The USCIS has highlighted 11 questions that direct a USCIS officer to weigh whether a petitioner has the "right of control" over the beneficiary and his/her work product. The USCIS officer would then make a determination based on whether a majority of the responses, "the totality of the circumstances" point to the employer having control over the beneficiary and his/her work product. Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site? If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i.e, weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner? Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required? Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment? Does the petitioner hire, pay and have the ability to fire the beneficiary? Does the petitioner evaluated the work product of the beneficiary, I, e, progress/performance reviews? Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes? Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary any type of employee benefits? Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment? Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business? Does the petitioner have the ability to control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished? Nayaanaa Admin naa office, Home IP lu unban seyyi. Adi adigi neersam vachhi Naa siggi loo ee reqest eduthunnaa. Nuvvu Ban tesesthee idee place loo neku thanks sebuthaaa naa comments edthaaa. | ||
| Paga_babai_paga Junior Artist Username: Paga_babai_paga Post Number: 961 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 67.159.44.103 Rating: N/A |
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP NOT A NEW ISSUE (USCIS MEMO DATED JANUARY 8, 2010 MEMORIALIZES ISSUES RAISED IN RFES SINCE THE PAST FEW YEARS AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE IN RESPONDING TO RFES) Due to globalization, and the increased reliance on information technology, at one extreme, companies have not required employees to travel to other locations but rather, work through the seamless web "virtually". At the other end of the spectrum, there has also been a rise in the situations requiring employees to work out of the office for customers/clients specifically at client locations (third parties). This latter situation typically involves layers of business relationships/contracts between the business entities sparking queries by the USCIS within the H1b scenario as to whether a valid employer/employee relationship exists if the potential beneficiary shall work at a third party worksite. The employer/employee relationship is not a new issue. The USCIS has been issuing denial decisions since the past few years citing this reason among others. The issue has recently risen to the forefront as the numbers of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) have risen. Furthermore, as some companies file their H1b petitions inhouse, some face denials where the relationship cannot be explained as per USCIS standards and/or documentation cannot be submitted. Other denials arise due to the lack of documentation from end clients (third parties) in support of the H1b beneficiary (sometimes third parties are reluctant to cooperate as per company policy). Generally end clients do not have a business relationship with the H1b petitioner, but rather have the relationship with a designated vendor (second party) and hence can be resistant to support an H-1b petition. The memo issued by the USCIS on January 8, 2010, " Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" focuses on certain industry requirements where employees and independent contractors work at third party worksites and the fact that the sponsoring H-1b employer must continue to demonstrate an employer-employee relationship with its H-1b beneficiary. While it is understood that the nature of this particular information technology industry requires contractors to "fill in the gap of workloads", the USCIS may see that the potential beneficiary may become part of the third party entity's business organization and practice and hence determines that the employer employee relationship does not exist. Nayaanaa Admin naa office, Home IP lu unban seyyi. Adi adigi neersam vachhi Naa siggi loo ee reqest eduthunnaa. Nuvvu Ban tesesthee idee place loo neku thanks sebuthaaa naa comments edthaaa. | ||
| Paga_babai_paga Junior Artist Username: Paga_babai_paga Post Number: 960 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 67.159.44.103 Rating: N/A |
I just got the mail from my fired. Their attorney, Rani Emandi provideed her insight into the latest topics and immigration issues. I am copy pasting the same here. This is FYI, I thought to share with you. PS: Naa office, Home IP lu unban ayye dakakaa nenu open sese threads loo unban IP ani request pettukuntaaa. Nayaanaa Admin naa office, Home IP lu unban seyyi. Adi adigi neersam vachhi Naa siggi loo ee reqest eduthunnaa. Nuvvu Ban tesesthee idee place loo neku thanks sebuthaaa naa comments edthaaa. |
