bluekayal
08-20 05:41 PM
I spoke to a TSC Immigration Information Officer (not customer service). he says they have about 9000 service requests they are looking at. Generally they are not supposed to give status info, but this person does. He is a people-friendly officer.
wallpaper La lista de especies en
GCBy3000
09-15 03:49 PM
Everybody knows about legals and illegals. Will it gain any grounds for them to get big vote this november is important. The SKIL bill or any legal provisions in the CIR will not fetch even a single vote for them. In fact it MAY reduce the vote from anti immigrant groups if they add anything for legals.
So I strongly doubt either house or senate to include any provisions related to legal immigrants at this point. Nobody wants to take a chance at this juncture of election period. From politicians point of view, it is better for them to maintain status quo now rather than including something which might create a huge noise later during the election period.
So keep on talking about this. Nothing is going to happen till March 07. Even after march, we have to start with some new bills and start the work on educating the senators and others about legal immigration issues. At this point,I think we are back to square one and our hands are tied up till they decide to talk about legals.
So I strongly doubt either house or senate to include any provisions related to legal immigrants at this point. Nobody wants to take a chance at this juncture of election period. From politicians point of view, it is better for them to maintain status quo now rather than including something which might create a huge noise later during the election period.
So keep on talking about this. Nothing is going to happen till March 07. Even after march, we have to start with some new bills and start the work on educating the senators and others about legal immigration issues. At this point,I think we are back to square one and our hands are tied up till they decide to talk about legals.
pammk
06-01 06:33 PM
Interview Date: Friday May 6, 2011
My Employment Model: E/V/C = employer/vendor/client. Working with the same employer for 5th year now and after initial H1b (3 years) this is my second H1 B renewal)
Visa Officer: A Lady
Visa Officer's comments to me: Everything looks good but we need to do some additional admin review.
Documents requested: The application packet my company gave me. These were returned to me at the conclusion of the interview which lasted for about 3-4 minutes.
Subsequent correspondence: after interview I got a couple of emails (one email per week) asking me to submit the documents (I129, client letter, and any supporting documents)
Current status: last correspondence via email was on May 13th, no response as of yet.
Am I experiencing this because of my employment model? Any comments from anyone?
Did anyone else have similar experience? Anyone from Southeast Asia?
My Employment Model: E/V/C = employer/vendor/client. Working with the same employer for 5th year now and after initial H1b (3 years) this is my second H1 B renewal)
Visa Officer: A Lady
Visa Officer's comments to me: Everything looks good but we need to do some additional admin review.
Documents requested: The application packet my company gave me. These were returned to me at the conclusion of the interview which lasted for about 3-4 minutes.
Subsequent correspondence: after interview I got a couple of emails (one email per week) asking me to submit the documents (I129, client letter, and any supporting documents)
Current status: last correspondence via email was on May 13th, no response as of yet.
Am I experiencing this because of my employment model? Any comments from anyone?
Did anyone else have similar experience? Anyone from Southeast Asia?
2011 El Gorilla un animal en
i-serf
05-24 09:38 PM
As previously mentioned in this forum, a year back (almost) when my visa stamping had not expired I had approached the MD MVA for my license. Due to a last/first name issue in my passport they declined the DL. Now after going through the name change process in US and India and getting the court order, I re-approached the MVA. After multiple levels of screening and approvals taking full 4 hrs, finally I got my 5 year license this Thursday.
MD license rules changed and there was lack of clarity for everybody some weeks back. Now there seems to be better clarity. Having SSN and i-94 is important as I felt.
If some one is in the same boat, I hope this info helped.
MD license rules changed and there was lack of clarity for everybody some weeks back. Now there seems to be better clarity. Having SSN and i-94 is important as I felt.
If some one is in the same boat, I hope this info helped.
more...
vin13
01-15 03:40 PM
I agree.
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
HereIComeGC
03-26 01:49 PM
How did you come to this conclusion?
From previous experiences, USCIS will work like crazy and use up all
visa numbers for EB2. Like they did last September - approving 60000 or so appplications.
From previous experiences, USCIS will work like crazy and use up all
visa numbers for EB2. Like they did last September - approving 60000 or so appplications.
more...
Rb_newsletter
07-15 10:29 PM
One time IO entered my visa type wrongly. Instead of L1-b he wrote H1-b on the I-94. I pointed out his mistake saying "My visa is L1-b. Shouldn't that be L1-b on I-94". He asked me "what visa are you in?". I repeated L1-b. He was angry and said in a raised voice "You should know what visa are you in. You should know". First place he didn't ask me what visa I was in and he made the mistake and jumped on me.
Baseline is IO can make mistakes but we are the one to be affected by that. So make sure your visa type, EAC #, and all other info on I-94 are correct before leaving the counter at POE.
Baseline is IO can make mistakes but we are the one to be affected by that. So make sure your visa type, EAC #, and all other info on I-94 are correct before leaving the counter at POE.
2010 551 especies en peligro de
EB-VoiceImmigration
02-24 08:50 PM
Moving to the Faster Lane : Changing EB3 to EB2
We at the Murthy Law Firm receive many inquiries as to whether it is possible for an individual with an employment-based, third preference (EB3) case to change to the employment-based, second preference (EB2) category. As explained in this article, it is possible for many some people to make this transition. When combined with the potential to retain the priority date from the earlier employment-based (EB) case, this can be a powerful tool for qualified individuals to obtain permanent residence, or the "green card," much earlier.
EB3 Cannot Simply be Changed to EB2
Often individuals ask whether their current EB3 cases can somehow be converted to EB2s. They will usually mention that they had enough education and/or experience to meet the EB2 requirements at the time the EB3 case was filed. The answer to this is simply, "No." The EB category of any labor certification-based case is set at the beginning, when the labor certification is prepared and filed. The category depends on the requirements specified in the labor certification. If these requirements are at the EB3 level, then the case is filed as an EB3, even if the foreign national beneficiary may have qualifications in terms of the education and work experience sufficient for an EB2 level job.
New EB2 Case Filing Based on Minimum Job Requirements
It is possible for an individual with an EB3 case to have either the existing employer / sponsor or a new employer file a new case in the EB2 category. Of course, the new position must meet the EB2 requirements, and the individual must qualify for the offered position. The starting point must always be with the job requirements, not one's own education and experience. It is the job that must fit within the EB2 category, as the law requires that the employer specify the minimum education and other qualifications for the specific job. Then, of course, the beneficiary must be able to establish that s/he meets the education and experience required for the job.
New EB2 Filing Permissible with Job Change
It is not unusual for an individual with an EB3 case to qualify for EB2. This happens when one acquires additional education and/or experience through the years during which the EB3 case has been pending. Over time, people often are promoted into jobs that may meet the EB2 requirements.
Typically, questions about potentially changing to EB2 come from individuals who have reached the point where they have filed their I-485s. They have waited for a number of years, but are suffering under the enormous waiting times in the EB3 category. Many have used AC21 to change jobs, are advancing in their careers, and now hold jobs that could meet the EB2 standards.
EB2 Filing can be with Existing or New Employer
As explained above, in order to move from EB3 to EB2 it is necessary to start over with an entirely new labor certification. This often is filed through a new employer, when an individual has moved to a different job.
It potentially could be filed through the same employer that filed the EB3 labor certification. This could be appropriate if one obtained a promotion or otherwise moved into an EB2 job. If filing through the same employer, the employee ideally should have completed the minimum years of work experience for the EB2 position before starting work with the current employer. This is because there are legal issues and potential restrictions when relying on the experience gained with the same employer to qualify for the new job. These issues should be analyzed and discussed with an attorney experienced and knowledgeable immigration law.
Transfer of Earlier Priority Date to New Case Filing
The greatest benefit to utilizing the strategy of re-filing comes in the potential to retain the priority date from the EB3 case. This option exists if the EB3 I-140 petition has been approved. If so, then it is possible to request retention of this priority date in the later-filed EB2 case. This means that it potentially is possible to transfer the earlier EB3 priority date to the later-filed EB2 case with a new or the same employer. In many cases, this means that the individual could have a current or closer-to-current priority date, thus saving many years of waiting to become eligible for permanent residence.
There are some issues with respect to retention of the priority date if the I-140 has been revoked. Generally, however, it is the policy of the USCIS to allow the retention and transfer of the earlier priority date if the I-140 petition has not been revoked by the USCIS for fraud or misrepresentation.
Is Earlier EB3 Filing Made Vulnerable by Filing New EB2?
Most people inquiring about this option are concerned about any potential risks to their current EB3 cases. There are some procedural options with respect to the final step in the re-filed cases. However, it is possible to process the new case without risk of disruption to the EB3 case. This assumes that all information provided in the course of the prior filing was accurate.
A new labor certification filing, even if not approved, would not disrupt a prior approval. The same holds true for an I-140 filing. Conversely, approvals of the labor certification and I-140 do not disrupt or displace existing approvals. It is possible to have multiple approvals of labor certifications and I-140s for the same individual. Even when the request to retain the earlier priority date from the EB3 case is granted, the prior EB3 case remains undisturbed. There is nothing transferred or taken away from the EB3 case in the process of requesting that the EB2 case be assigned the same priority date.
At the final stage, there are options as to how to complete the case. The pros and cons should be discussed with a qualified immigration attorney. It is possible to proceed with the cases essentially in parallel, allowing for two cases and two potential avenues for eventual approval of permanent residence. The best way to proceed depends upon one's situation and, ideally, should be analyzed to consider the risks and options. What is helpful to most people, however, is that they do not have to risk their current EB3 cases to try to move to EB2.
Conclusion
At the Murthy Law Firm, we have successfully utilized the strategy discussed in this article for many of our clients by filing for each a new EB2 case with the same or a new employer. While it requires starting over with a new labor certification, for many it offers a significant advantage in terms of timing when the earlier priority date can be retained. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers who wish to explore this option further should contact the Murthy Law Firm to help them with this process or for a consultation to determine whether it is appropriate for them.
Copyright � 2010, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
We at the Murthy Law Firm receive many inquiries as to whether it is possible for an individual with an employment-based, third preference (EB3) case to change to the employment-based, second preference (EB2) category. As explained in this article, it is possible for many some people to make this transition. When combined with the potential to retain the priority date from the earlier employment-based (EB) case, this can be a powerful tool for qualified individuals to obtain permanent residence, or the "green card," much earlier.
EB3 Cannot Simply be Changed to EB2
Often individuals ask whether their current EB3 cases can somehow be converted to EB2s. They will usually mention that they had enough education and/or experience to meet the EB2 requirements at the time the EB3 case was filed. The answer to this is simply, "No." The EB category of any labor certification-based case is set at the beginning, when the labor certification is prepared and filed. The category depends on the requirements specified in the labor certification. If these requirements are at the EB3 level, then the case is filed as an EB3, even if the foreign national beneficiary may have qualifications in terms of the education and work experience sufficient for an EB2 level job.
New EB2 Case Filing Based on Minimum Job Requirements
It is possible for an individual with an EB3 case to have either the existing employer / sponsor or a new employer file a new case in the EB2 category. Of course, the new position must meet the EB2 requirements, and the individual must qualify for the offered position. The starting point must always be with the job requirements, not one's own education and experience. It is the job that must fit within the EB2 category, as the law requires that the employer specify the minimum education and other qualifications for the specific job. Then, of course, the beneficiary must be able to establish that s/he meets the education and experience required for the job.
New EB2 Filing Permissible with Job Change
It is not unusual for an individual with an EB3 case to qualify for EB2. This happens when one acquires additional education and/or experience through the years during which the EB3 case has been pending. Over time, people often are promoted into jobs that may meet the EB2 requirements.
Typically, questions about potentially changing to EB2 come from individuals who have reached the point where they have filed their I-485s. They have waited for a number of years, but are suffering under the enormous waiting times in the EB3 category. Many have used AC21 to change jobs, are advancing in their careers, and now hold jobs that could meet the EB2 standards.
EB2 Filing can be with Existing or New Employer
As explained above, in order to move from EB3 to EB2 it is necessary to start over with an entirely new labor certification. This often is filed through a new employer, when an individual has moved to a different job.
It potentially could be filed through the same employer that filed the EB3 labor certification. This could be appropriate if one obtained a promotion or otherwise moved into an EB2 job. If filing through the same employer, the employee ideally should have completed the minimum years of work experience for the EB2 position before starting work with the current employer. This is because there are legal issues and potential restrictions when relying on the experience gained with the same employer to qualify for the new job. These issues should be analyzed and discussed with an attorney experienced and knowledgeable immigration law.
Transfer of Earlier Priority Date to New Case Filing
The greatest benefit to utilizing the strategy of re-filing comes in the potential to retain the priority date from the EB3 case. This option exists if the EB3 I-140 petition has been approved. If so, then it is possible to request retention of this priority date in the later-filed EB2 case. This means that it potentially is possible to transfer the earlier EB3 priority date to the later-filed EB2 case with a new or the same employer. In many cases, this means that the individual could have a current or closer-to-current priority date, thus saving many years of waiting to become eligible for permanent residence.
There are some issues with respect to retention of the priority date if the I-140 has been revoked. Generally, however, it is the policy of the USCIS to allow the retention and transfer of the earlier priority date if the I-140 petition has not been revoked by the USCIS for fraud or misrepresentation.
Is Earlier EB3 Filing Made Vulnerable by Filing New EB2?
Most people inquiring about this option are concerned about any potential risks to their current EB3 cases. There are some procedural options with respect to the final step in the re-filed cases. However, it is possible to process the new case without risk of disruption to the EB3 case. This assumes that all information provided in the course of the prior filing was accurate.
A new labor certification filing, even if not approved, would not disrupt a prior approval. The same holds true for an I-140 filing. Conversely, approvals of the labor certification and I-140 do not disrupt or displace existing approvals. It is possible to have multiple approvals of labor certifications and I-140s for the same individual. Even when the request to retain the earlier priority date from the EB3 case is granted, the prior EB3 case remains undisturbed. There is nothing transferred or taken away from the EB3 case in the process of requesting that the EB2 case be assigned the same priority date.
At the final stage, there are options as to how to complete the case. The pros and cons should be discussed with a qualified immigration attorney. It is possible to proceed with the cases essentially in parallel, allowing for two cases and two potential avenues for eventual approval of permanent residence. The best way to proceed depends upon one's situation and, ideally, should be analyzed to consider the risks and options. What is helpful to most people, however, is that they do not have to risk their current EB3 cases to try to move to EB2.
Conclusion
At the Murthy Law Firm, we have successfully utilized the strategy discussed in this article for many of our clients by filing for each a new EB2 case with the same or a new employer. While it requires starting over with a new labor certification, for many it offers a significant advantage in terms of timing when the earlier priority date can be retained. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers who wish to explore this option further should contact the Murthy Law Firm to help them with this process or for a consultation to determine whether it is appropriate for them.
Copyright � 2010, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
more...
willgetgc2005
11-01 02:10 PM
I have a question about my Mother in laws' visit to the USA.She has a 10 year multi entry tourist visa (B1, validity from 2005 to 2015) to the US and she has visited the US 3 times so far and the dates are as follows
February 18, 2006 to August 16, 2006 (visited her sons family in East)
July 8, 2007 to January 7, 2008 (stayed with us)
August 2, 2008 to February 01, 2009 (stayed with us)
She is currently on her 3rd visit to the USA and is living with us. Her departure date is January 2009. On her visit this time, at the port of entry (LAX) she was asked by the Immigration officer if she was visiting USA so often because of her grand child. She said yes and the immigration officer stamped her a 6 month stay and also told her to be careful of future visits so often to the United States. My mother in law is a widow and both her children live in the US as permanent residents.
Our baby recently had a health issue and was hospitalized. But due to all this with my wife and I both working, my wife feels it would be good if we could get my mother in law an extension of stay (perhaps 3months plus beyond January 2009)till my wife can complete her internship (which is time bound). My mother in laws� son lives in the east coast and he is a permanent resident in the USA.
I do not want to jeopardize her ability to visit the US in future due to an extension. So the question are:
Will a request for extension be approved by USCIS?
Will this jeopardize her chances of coming to the US in future?
IF she gets an extension this time, what will be the cooling off period for her to come to the US next time
How long does it take for USCIS to process a request for extension and what is the processing fee
Your response is greatly appreciated.
February 18, 2006 to August 16, 2006 (visited her sons family in East)
July 8, 2007 to January 7, 2008 (stayed with us)
August 2, 2008 to February 01, 2009 (stayed with us)
She is currently on her 3rd visit to the USA and is living with us. Her departure date is January 2009. On her visit this time, at the port of entry (LAX) she was asked by the Immigration officer if she was visiting USA so often because of her grand child. She said yes and the immigration officer stamped her a 6 month stay and also told her to be careful of future visits so often to the United States. My mother in law is a widow and both her children live in the US as permanent residents.
Our baby recently had a health issue and was hospitalized. But due to all this with my wife and I both working, my wife feels it would be good if we could get my mother in law an extension of stay (perhaps 3months plus beyond January 2009)till my wife can complete her internship (which is time bound). My mother in laws� son lives in the east coast and he is a permanent resident in the USA.
I do not want to jeopardize her ability to visit the US in future due to an extension. So the question are:
Will a request for extension be approved by USCIS?
Will this jeopardize her chances of coming to the US in future?
IF she gets an extension this time, what will be the cooling off period for her to come to the US next time
How long does it take for USCIS to process a request for extension and what is the processing fee
Your response is greatly appreciated.
hair ANIMALES EXTRAÑOS
GCDelay
11-30 11:17 AM
xxx
more...
21stIcon
05-04 01:07 PM
I've been monitoring BEC&PERM for the past 30 days and delved deeper on all labor processing thread, but found none on denials of conversion, please point out some reference URLs for PERM conversion denials that would be helpful.
hot Status U.I.C.N. De acuerdo a
meetpravee
04-20 06:06 AM
Thanks for your responses.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
more...
house animales invertebrados 4
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
tattoo Animales en peligro de
vin13
01-16 01:07 PM
Isn't recapturing of H1-B when you are trying to determine if you have used up your 6 year limit.
In this case, he is trying to get out of H1 and get back in. At this time he will be considered on the yearly cap.
I think we are talking of two different aspects.
In this case, he is trying to get out of H1 and get back in. At this time he will be considered on the yearly cap.
I think we are talking of two different aspects.
more...
pictures animales en peligro de
ajay_hyd
02-08 12:53 PM
If its been more than 180 days since your 140 was approved, can you not use AC21 to move to a new job (similar). even if the old company revokes the 140, you will get RFE/NOID and you can reply back in specified time.
correct me if i am wrong.
correct me if i am wrong.
dresses en El blog de Gregorio
immi2006
05-04 12:59 PM
Hi,
I spent 2 weeks just looking at all immigration.com posts and analysing the data patterns posted on the BEC, permtracker, calif 140 stage and so on... no one has published a report for a ready reckoner. I wanted to see the data sample to see where we stand today on the status as a snapshot, the data could be off the mark, because there could be folks who filed multiple LCs, and not withdrawn when one of them is approved !..or there could be employers who may have filed Eb2 and Eb3 for same person, cannot gurantee... so, the data is based on all postings of immigration.com, I would encourage u to read some of the posts to get a first hand feeling of the trends.
I spent 2 weeks just looking at all immigration.com posts and analysing the data patterns posted on the BEC, permtracker, calif 140 stage and so on... no one has published a report for a ready reckoner. I wanted to see the data sample to see where we stand today on the status as a snapshot, the data could be off the mark, because there could be folks who filed multiple LCs, and not withdrawn when one of them is approved !..or there could be employers who may have filed Eb2 and Eb3 for same person, cannot gurantee... so, the data is based on all postings of immigration.com, I would encourage u to read some of the posts to get a first hand feeling of the trends.
more...
makeup a la lista de especies en
reddy_73
10-03 08:31 AM
<bump>
girlfriend Animales en peligro de
tabletpc
12-16 10:22 AM
Don't Panic but retaliate.
Appraise your self with form wh4 and AC21 rules and then appreaise your new employer attorney. You and your new employer attorney are in good situation to take your Ex-employer for a ride. Good luck....
After 180 days I-485 is pending and I-140 is approved, your priority date remains valid even if your employer withdraws approved I-140. Basically, your ex-employer cannot stop the case, and as long as you find a new job in similar ocupation and very similar duties, you I-485 can still be approved. Read AC-21 for more information.
Suggestion: keep the employment termination letter/note/email for records for future reference.
Appraise your self with form wh4 and AC21 rules and then appreaise your new employer attorney. You and your new employer attorney are in good situation to take your Ex-employer for a ride. Good luck....
After 180 days I-485 is pending and I-140 is approved, your priority date remains valid even if your employer withdraws approved I-140. Basically, your ex-employer cannot stop the case, and as long as you find a new job in similar ocupation and very similar duties, you I-485 can still be approved. Read AC-21 for more information.
Suggestion: keep the employment termination letter/note/email for records for future reference.
hairstyles nombres de animales no están
fromnaija
07-23 02:38 PM
I remember reading somewhere on USCIS website and this forum that FP taken in late 2007 (probably for all July 2007 filers) will last for the duration of AOS application...
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
USCIS is developing the Biometrics Storage System (BSS) w hich will allow the re-use of fingerprints and, if an application or petition has not been adjudicated within the fifteen month validity period, USCIS will be able to simply re-submit the stored fingerprints to the FBI, without any involvement of the applicant or petitioner. See 72 FR 17172 (Apr. 6, 2007) (establishing a new system of records).
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
DATES: The established system of
records will be effective May 7, 2007
unless comments are received that
result in a contrary determination.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
USCIS is developing the Biometrics Storage System (BSS) w hich will allow the re-use of fingerprints and, if an application or petition has not been adjudicated within the fifteen month validity period, USCIS will be able to simply re-submit the stored fingerprints to the FBI, without any involvement of the applicant or petitioner. See 72 FR 17172 (Apr. 6, 2007) (establishing a new system of records).
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
DATES: The established system of
records will be effective May 7, 2007
unless comments are received that
result in a contrary determination.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
sam_hoosier
11-15 04:02 PM
Do the following job descriptions qualify for AC21 provided all other factors such as salary and 485 pending for 180+ days have been met
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
Is the SOC/O*NET job code same for both jobs ? If so, you should be fine but double check with your lawyer.
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
Is the SOC/O*NET job code same for both jobs ? If so, you should be fine but double check with your lawyer.
xela
06-03 09:37 PM
lawyer paper filed april 15th
receipt received april 27th
received date april 16th receipt date april 26th
last soft LUD April 30th
no fp notice or anything since
called them 2 days ago to put in a request for fp cus i am tired of waiting hoped that this would prompt them to look at it.... so far no change
receipt received april 27th
received date april 16th receipt date april 26th
last soft LUD April 30th
no fp notice or anything since
called them 2 days ago to put in a request for fp cus i am tired of waiting hoped that this would prompt them to look at it.... so far no change
No comments:
Post a Comment