vidyakulkarni
07-13 11:24 AM
we are highly skilled people. so we should wear business suit , it will give impact.
wallpaper 2005 Dodge Ram 1500
solaris27
02-24 01:26 PM
i don't know but he put it there
GC_SUCK
11-02 11:03 AM
As per my knowledge, GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
2011 Dodge Ram 1500 Daytona 4x4 SLT
terpcurt
November 2nd, 2003, 10:46 AM
i don't normally go for tricked-up stuff, but this one kind of hooked me. I did the "Ansel Adams" conversion to B&W which gave me a contrasty and "antique' look. Then I merged it with the original at about 45%.
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
Nice technique Don......... definitley gave it a ~look~ to it
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
Nice technique Don......... definitley gave it a ~look~ to it
more...
vinkrish
10-07 05:55 PM
I would really love to hear comments from ppl who can relate to this possibly with some first-hand experience in going through this stage!
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers “independent” forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers “independent” forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
ski_dude12
10-15 02:17 PM
It is possible that since you are on H1 they might have assumed that your employer filed for your GC.
more...
SFSweta
08-22 03:26 PM
Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP - San Francisco - just Google them....you should be able to find contact information. They've treated me wonderfully!!
2010 Dodge RAM 1500 V8 MAGNUM SPORT
genius
11-20 09:18 PM
Should we mail paulmcd@cmp.com (Paul McDougall )of information Week.
See: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194700008&subSection=All+Stories
See: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194700008&subSection=All+Stories
more...
eatpavbhaji
04-22 02:20 PM
I lost my major young life on green card (around 9 years) and I can just am pray that my labor will be used only for myself and not others.
LABOR SUBSTITUTION SHOULD BE ELIMINTED RIGHT AWAY.
ALL OF THEM WHO USED OTHER'S LABOR SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED COMPLETELY AND SHOULD BE GIVEN VISA NUMBERS LAST.
LABOR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE FROM COMPANY TO COMPANY OTHERWISE COMPANY CAN PURPOSEFULLY FIRE EMPLOYEE TO GIVE OR SELL LABOR TO OTHERS.
Below comments have gone to comments for elimination of labor substitution.
TOP 10 reason to support rule to eliminate labor substitution.
1> So many years, labor applications were misused completely. Many Companies were filing fake labor and were using for anyone elsewith lower educated, lower experience people who wanted GC within 6 months instead of normal 4 to 6 years. It is like stealing someone's pocket.
2> One was waiting for years hoping his labor will get approved and after his labor was approved, company used for another person demonstrating complete exploitation of system.
3> Many company started selling labor applications as key business
4> Many companies were giving too less salary indicating that if employee joins with minimum salary and if they sign 6 years of bond then company will use USA's approved labor for anyone.
5> Most of the companies started asking money from employee. So if employee is saving $6000 per year, they have to work for free for entire year if they want GC.
6> Why one need to substitute labor when they can file new labor for new person anyway.
7> Companies started threatening employees that if employee don't do what they say, they will use his/her labor for other and he will loose all 2 or 3 years of labor approval. Why not...it was legal to take labor back and use it like playing cards!!
8> Everyone knew that they can buy approved labor and get their GC in few months and original owner will loose years.
9> Who is going to audit whos labor was used how ? Nobody in past from government asked or audited as how come one's GC came so fast and others with better capabilities/education took 5 times. Nobody in past from government asked or audited as if employee was important then why company never filed labor for him and all of sudden used pre-approved labor to have that employee.
10> Companies used to stock labor applications like grocery (actually like
gold...can buy/sell anytime !)...after all labor application is cheap and shortcut to save 2 to 3 years and sell in blackmarket.
LABOR SUBSTITUTION SHOULD BE ELIMINTED RIGHT AWAY.
ALL OF THEM WHO USED OTHER'S LABOR SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED COMPLETELY AND SHOULD BE GIVEN VISA NUMBERS LAST.
LABOR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE FROM COMPANY TO COMPANY OTHERWISE COMPANY CAN PURPOSEFULLY FIRE EMPLOYEE TO GIVE OR SELL LABOR TO OTHERS.
Below comments have gone to comments for elimination of labor substitution.
TOP 10 reason to support rule to eliminate labor substitution.
1> So many years, labor applications were misused completely. Many Companies were filing fake labor and were using for anyone elsewith lower educated, lower experience people who wanted GC within 6 months instead of normal 4 to 6 years. It is like stealing someone's pocket.
2> One was waiting for years hoping his labor will get approved and after his labor was approved, company used for another person demonstrating complete exploitation of system.
3> Many company started selling labor applications as key business
4> Many companies were giving too less salary indicating that if employee joins with minimum salary and if they sign 6 years of bond then company will use USA's approved labor for anyone.
5> Most of the companies started asking money from employee. So if employee is saving $6000 per year, they have to work for free for entire year if they want GC.
6> Why one need to substitute labor when they can file new labor for new person anyway.
7> Companies started threatening employees that if employee don't do what they say, they will use his/her labor for other and he will loose all 2 or 3 years of labor approval. Why not...it was legal to take labor back and use it like playing cards!!
8> Everyone knew that they can buy approved labor and get their GC in few months and original owner will loose years.
9> Who is going to audit whos labor was used how ? Nobody in past from government asked or audited as how come one's GC came so fast and others with better capabilities/education took 5 times. Nobody in past from government asked or audited as if employee was important then why company never filed labor for him and all of sudden used pre-approved labor to have that employee.
10> Companies used to stock labor applications like grocery (actually like
gold...can buy/sell anytime !)...after all labor application is cheap and shortcut to save 2 to 3 years and sell in blackmarket.
hair 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 Sport
plassey
08-13 10:48 AM
Congratulations but I was wondering if you are more an exception then a rule...:confused:
Yes, i opened a new thread so that everybody can see that CIS does mostly work on cases according to 485 Receipt Date. Otherwise i can't justify my EAD approval. I filed 485 and AP on June 18th and got RNs 2 weeks later. But EAD was filed later on July 12th. I got the receipt number for EAD from the back of my cashed check but never got actual Receipt Notice. Today i got the email that card production has been ordered.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
Yes, i opened a new thread so that everybody can see that CIS does mostly work on cases according to 485 Receipt Date. Otherwise i can't justify my EAD approval. I filed 485 and AP on June 18th and got RNs 2 weeks later. But EAD was filed later on July 12th. I got the receipt number for EAD from the back of my cashed check but never got actual Receipt Notice. Today i got the email that card production has been ordered.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
more...
styrum
02-18 12:22 PM
I can't recall Democratic senators helping LEGAL immigrants during the CIR debate last year!
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the only amendment favorable for us.
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the only amendment favorable for us.
hot 2011 Dodge RAM 1500 Sport Quad
sku
01-09 04:03 PM
Is this survey for only "those who lost a job while waiting for GC" or does it include anyone and everyone?
I think ?
Also I will add...Please add note who you are refering too who lost the job like family member, friend, co-worker Or someone else
I think ?
Also I will add...Please add note who you are refering too who lost the job like family member, friend, co-worker Or someone else
more...
house 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Sport Quad
franklin
07-13 04:23 PM
BEst of luck to you all for the rally. Take lots of photos. Who is arranging video cameras,digital cameras from IV.
NJ member
There are multiple people bringing cameras and camcorders :)
NJ member
There are multiple people bringing cameras and camcorders :)
tattoo Ryan#39;s Dodge Ram 1500 Regular
kprgroup
08-03 05:21 AM
My EAD details
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
more...
pictures Dodge Ram 1500 Sport, 2009
dazed378
04-07 09:41 PM
A small correction - the notice sent by IRS did not mention that my filing status was changed from "married filing jointly" to "married filing separately" or "filing single". The notice says that
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
dresses Dodge Ram 1500 Sport Black.
rvanet
06-05 05:10 AM
Soul... That's TERRIBLE!!! golgi... yours is very annoying! :ninja:
more...
makeup 2010 Ram 1500 Sport QC 4x4
sankap
07-14 06:21 PM
Houston
girlfriend A. 2009-2010 Dodge Ram 1500 with Sport Package
rhdiln
06-06 03:23 PM
I was associated with allied informatics for 4 years. My experience is very bad with company. Please be careful. they are bunch of bad people.
hairstyles 2011 Dodge Ram 1500 Sport Crew
nixstor
08-24 11:29 AM
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=222935
I understand the plight, but you aint alone bro.. 360K people are along with you. Dont look for shortcuts (in case if both the posts are by one person ) and get what you deserve. Do what you can to educate your friends and contribute.
I understand the plight, but you aint alone bro.. 360K people are along with you. Dont look for shortcuts (in case if both the posts are by one person ) and get what you deserve. Do what you can to educate your friends and contribute.
amitjoey
01-11 11:46 AM
Just so everybody understands:
This bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on Jan 5th 2011.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.
There have been a lot of bills in the previous years that have not made it to the floor.
IV can make it an action item if the bill comes out of the committee and is going to go on the floor for debate.
Members need to constantly educate lawmakers, approach the judiciary committe and tell them about the issues we face. Unless we educate and build pressure, these kind of bills will never come to the floor.
Venting or wishing for some bill to come on floor will not help. Talking to lawmakers in person, educating lawmaker's staff and building pressure to keep our issues alive is the only way forward.
This bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on Jan 5th 2011.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.
There have been a lot of bills in the previous years that have not made it to the floor.
IV can make it an action item if the bill comes out of the committee and is going to go on the floor for debate.
Members need to constantly educate lawmakers, approach the judiciary committe and tell them about the issues we face. Unless we educate and build pressure, these kind of bills will never come to the floor.
Venting or wishing for some bill to come on floor will not help. Talking to lawmakers in person, educating lawmaker's staff and building pressure to keep our issues alive is the only way forward.
perm2gc
12-22 06:08 PM
Efren Hernandez III, Director of the Business and Trade Services Branch at INS in Washington, D.C. announced in late December 2001 that the INS does not recognize or provide any "grace period" for maintaining status after employment termination. Mr. Hernandez explained this strict interpretation by reasoning that there is no difference between H1B holders and other non-immigrants, like students, to justify a stay in the U.S. beyond the explicit purpose of their admission. Mr. Hernandez admits that this may cause hardship to some terminated or laid off H1B workers, but believes that the INS position is legally justified.
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
