pappu
01-02 08:13 PM
I have posted about immigrationvoice.org in following yahoo groups
IIT- Global (2526 members)
IIT-midwest(317 members)
IITK-westcoast(766 members)
Inter IIT (4654 members)
I hope this helps.
Good Luck to All
-Shukla
Thank you very much
could you and couple of more members volunteer to post messages on the following sites
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=16078&postcount=42
Pls post on this thread once you have posted.
IIT- Global (2526 members)
IIT-midwest(317 members)
IITK-westcoast(766 members)
Inter IIT (4654 members)
I hope this helps.
Good Luck to All
-Shukla
Thank you very much
could you and couple of more members volunteer to post messages on the following sites
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=16078&postcount=42
Pls post on this thread once you have posted.
wallpaper Fiji Islands Map
pappu
06-14 01:13 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/TransformationConOps_Mar07.pdf
.soulty
03-11 12:33 AM
thats better.. cool, so i'll contact grinch to see if he is happy to get this poll ready.
2011 Map of Fiji amp; Location of
bharad
02-04 02:38 PM
have sent you a p.m.
more...
qplearn
11-24 11:02 AM
Ok. This is new to me. Can someone confirm if this is true? Is there any link that supports this?
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
addsf345
12-10 07:49 PM
you hit the nail ... this is the biggest reason ...We are just too many and everyone wants to come to US
don't you think that working towards removing unfair country quota in skilled category would be faster & easier than population control?
Now that you are enlighted about being one among too many, are you planning to go back, and reduce backlog for others?
Also, when talking about reducing indian population, I hope that you do not agree with what 10 pakistanis tried to do in mumbai few days back!!! That is one very bad way of reducing population! I would prefer load balancing i.e. moving some ppl to part of world where population is not so much. This is called immigration.
Jokes apart, we need to seriously highlight the fact that as there is no country quota in H1B, since it is a skilled category visa, similarly there should be no country quota in skill based immigration too. We are given visas as their industry need us, but they do not care if we suffer for years. It is nothing but simply 'DESCRIMINATION" based on country of birth.
Ask this question: Is it a crime to be born in certain country? Do we all have choice to do so? If it is not a crime, why we are being punished?
Do we have guts to fight that??? we can only talk about some stupid solutions like control indian population and in just next 100 years there will be no retrogression for indians. Some one would also suggest indians must not to study and remain uneducated, so you won't come here under skilled quota and voila - no retrogression!!! but the fact is, we have no unity, no guts and no willingness to stand up for our community. IV is the only effort I have seen in years in right direction.
don't you think that working towards removing unfair country quota in skilled category would be faster & easier than population control?
Now that you are enlighted about being one among too many, are you planning to go back, and reduce backlog for others?
Also, when talking about reducing indian population, I hope that you do not agree with what 10 pakistanis tried to do in mumbai few days back!!! That is one very bad way of reducing population! I would prefer load balancing i.e. moving some ppl to part of world where population is not so much. This is called immigration.
Jokes apart, we need to seriously highlight the fact that as there is no country quota in H1B, since it is a skilled category visa, similarly there should be no country quota in skill based immigration too. We are given visas as their industry need us, but they do not care if we suffer for years. It is nothing but simply 'DESCRIMINATION" based on country of birth.
Ask this question: Is it a crime to be born in certain country? Do we all have choice to do so? If it is not a crime, why we are being punished?
Do we have guts to fight that??? we can only talk about some stupid solutions like control indian population and in just next 100 years there will be no retrogression for indians. Some one would also suggest indians must not to study and remain uneducated, so you won't come here under skilled quota and voila - no retrogression!!! but the fact is, we have no unity, no guts and no willingness to stand up for our community. IV is the only effort I have seen in years in right direction.
more...
zuhail
04-11 01:23 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
2010 MAP OF FIJI ISLANDS
alex99
11-01 12:33 PM
Bumping..
more...
GC_dd
06-11 11:56 AM
done
hair Map of Fiji
Rajeev
12-19 10:47 AM
Hi Varsha
I will join the conference. My e-mail address is rajeevm100@hotmail.com
I will join the conference. My e-mail address is rajeevm100@hotmail.com
more...
YesGC_NoGC
04-10 06:10 PM
ISit possible to split pre Jan 2003 to 3 or 4 categories?or is it too late...
What is your EB3-India PD (I-485 either pending, or not yet filed)
What is your EB3-India PD (I-485 either pending, or not yet filed)
hot Second Segment
sc3
10-16 04:45 PM
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues). It is unfortunate that due to your application movement to another center you got a bad "RD" -- you should probably work with them to get the RD fixed.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL’s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues). It is unfortunate that due to your application movement to another center you got a bad "RD" -- you should probably work with them to get the RD fixed.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL’s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
more...
house Fiji Islands. location map
drirshad
07-04 09:35 PM
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
tattoo Fiji Map.gif (7126 bytes)
drona
07-09 03:14 PM
Way to go Gabriela!
more...
pictures Fiji Islands - Guide Map
coloniel60
08-15 04:13 PM
In fact better than expected for EB2
Nothing new. Whoever is eligible to apply in Sep has already applied except for a few unlucky people stuck in BEC.
Nothing new. Whoever is eligible to apply in Sep has already applied except for a few unlucky people stuck in BEC.
dresses Fiji (Savusavu) (map)
newuser
06-10 04:04 PM
Done
more...
makeup Island, Fiji - Map of
gc_on_demand
02-11 03:49 PM
I agree. I tried to see if there is a way FB category in 2009 might have received a spillover from EB. But thats almost impossible given EB is severely backlogged.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
I have asked to Vin13 if he/she can get source of information from Ron. If you have good contact with him can you ask for source of info ? Any link to USED vs waste number. Or even any link that made definition of USED visas and waste visas and their number for last year ? I am serious to get this fix this time , if I get a link to some document that clarify. I think that will help so many. Please get some links to information and we should build a team to fight for this.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
I have asked to Vin13 if he/she can get source of information from Ron. If you have good contact with him can you ask for source of info ? Any link to USED vs waste number. Or even any link that made definition of USED visas and waste visas and their number for last year ? I am serious to get this fix this time , if I get a link to some document that clarify. I think that will help so many. Please get some links to information and we should build a team to fight for this.
girlfriend Taveuni Island Map
varshadas
02-09 06:35 PM
Hello All,
Can you all please let me know where you all are wrt to contacting the Congressmen Rajeev and Shekhar, I haven't heard from you guys in a while.
Where are you?
Thanks,
Varsha
Can you all please let me know where you all are wrt to contacting the Congressmen Rajeev and Shekhar, I haven't heard from you guys in a while.
Where are you?
Thanks,
Varsha
hairstyles [Back to the main Fiji Map]
jayz
08-15 05:28 PM
Well, I mean no offense to anybody but why is EB3 ROW so far back while EB2 India and China are as per June bulletin or better?
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
The reasoning that I can see is, you are comparing EB2 to EB3. EB2 gets higher preference than EB3, but I am not sure how the per-country rationing plays in this mix.
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
The reasoning that I can see is, you are comparing EB2 to EB3. EB2 gets higher preference than EB3, but I am not sure how the per-country rationing plays in this mix.
sanjaymm
10-29 01:43 PM
I have mailed a notorized letter. I have also forwarded the link to other friends who may have missed this action item.
Sanjay
Sanjay
chanduv23
07-29 02:03 PM
In that case, employers should mention the following in the offer letter
" In case, in future, if economy goes bad and recession occurs,we cannot sponsor your green card since it is easy to find american citizens who has minimum qualification."
This should be mentioned on the offer letters given by big comapnies.Then it is up to H1B candidate whenter to take the offer(risk) or not.
Can these companies do this????
Let me tell you my story
I worked for a mid sized consulting company (not to be mistaken for desi contracting) and GC was filed in March 2004 (it was EB3 labor). I was in my 6th year of h1b in 2005 when this company got bought over and unfortunately I lost job in the 6th year of h1b with only 11 months of h1b left. At that time I was newly married and with no bank balance. Then I looked for a new job, managed to get a nice long term contract job in a month and got h1 transferred to a decent consulting company who applied for my 6th and 7th year of h1b using the labor already filed in the company I was layed off. When in my 6th year my new PERM got approved with this employer and 140 also approved and based on that I got 8th, 9th, 10th year h1b extensions. I managed to file for 485 in July fiasco and then after an year, I left the employer and started using EAD. That employer revoked my i 140 because I left them and then I had to deal with all the AC21 stuff and my journey still continues. Things were not easy, I had to maintain excellent billing rate, in one ocassion the client filed for chapter 11 and did not make payments to my employer and this strained my employer's finances and I had to make it up with a better billing rate with next client to keep my GC process intact and being consinuously employed on high billing contract jobs is also challenging.
The diference between your situation and mine is - you are left with a choice and a decision to make, whereas me, I felt like was taken to a top of cliff and thrown from there.
" In case, in future, if economy goes bad and recession occurs,we cannot sponsor your green card since it is easy to find american citizens who has minimum qualification."
This should be mentioned on the offer letters given by big comapnies.Then it is up to H1B candidate whenter to take the offer(risk) or not.
Can these companies do this????
Let me tell you my story
I worked for a mid sized consulting company (not to be mistaken for desi contracting) and GC was filed in March 2004 (it was EB3 labor). I was in my 6th year of h1b in 2005 when this company got bought over and unfortunately I lost job in the 6th year of h1b with only 11 months of h1b left. At that time I was newly married and with no bank balance. Then I looked for a new job, managed to get a nice long term contract job in a month and got h1 transferred to a decent consulting company who applied for my 6th and 7th year of h1b using the labor already filed in the company I was layed off. When in my 6th year my new PERM got approved with this employer and 140 also approved and based on that I got 8th, 9th, 10th year h1b extensions. I managed to file for 485 in July fiasco and then after an year, I left the employer and started using EAD. That employer revoked my i 140 because I left them and then I had to deal with all the AC21 stuff and my journey still continues. Things were not easy, I had to maintain excellent billing rate, in one ocassion the client filed for chapter 11 and did not make payments to my employer and this strained my employer's finances and I had to make it up with a better billing rate with next client to keep my GC process intact and being consinuously employed on high billing contract jobs is also challenging.
The diference between your situation and mine is - you are left with a choice and a decision to make, whereas me, I felt like was taken to a top of cliff and thrown from there.