jayleno
12-12 12:56 PM
If the reason for the denial is the company financial situation and not been audited, I dont know how EB3 will solve the problem. Are you already being paid the amount they specified in the LC?
I think you should consult an independant attorney and get an opinion rather than trusting your company's lawyer.
My PERM was applied in Nov 2007 and 140 in early- mid 2008.
It was applied under EB2 category (Masters Degree). Currently, I'm on the 5th yr of my H1. My 6th year starts in Feb 2009.
Had received an RFE to which we responded but it still got denied. The main reason being the company has a loss and the books are not audited.
My lawyer suggested that we appeal the deinal and start a new PERM in EB3 category.
Are these my only option to make sure I can renew my H1 after the 6th year? Any suggestions?
I'm confused and scared at the same time. Not sure what to do..
please suggest me all the options available to me.
Thanks!
I think you should consult an independant attorney and get an opinion rather than trusting your company's lawyer.
My PERM was applied in Nov 2007 and 140 in early- mid 2008.
It was applied under EB2 category (Masters Degree). Currently, I'm on the 5th yr of my H1. My 6th year starts in Feb 2009.
Had received an RFE to which we responded but it still got denied. The main reason being the company has a loss and the books are not audited.
My lawyer suggested that we appeal the deinal and start a new PERM in EB3 category.
Are these my only option to make sure I can renew my H1 after the 6th year? Any suggestions?
I'm confused and scared at the same time. Not sure what to do..
please suggest me all the options available to me.
Thanks!
wallpaper new sidekick 2011.
TeddyKoochu
01-24 10:04 AM
Annual Report of the Visa Office for 2010 has been released here...
Report of the Visa Office 2010 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_5240.html)
Table V Part 2
India Received
EB1 6741
EB2 19961
EB3 3036
Other Info
EB1 received a total of 41026 which means there was no spillover from EB1.
Last year the annual cap was 149200, so EB1's share by 28.8% rule is 42963
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
Report of the Visa Office 2010 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_5240.html)
Table V Part 2
India Received
EB1 6741
EB2 19961
EB3 3036
Other Info
EB1 received a total of 41026 which means there was no spillover from EB1.
Last year the annual cap was 149200, so EB1's share by 28.8% rule is 42963
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
Hassan11
04-08 11:13 AM
is MTR the same thing as Appeal?? so far I haven't heard from the Appeal borad. as I mentioned before the HR Manager sent them a letter at the end of Jan 2008 requesting an update on my appeal but she hasn't heard anything from them. this is really taking forever. all we want them to do is to make a decision, either accept the appeal or deny, so i can move on.
I would definitely be interested to see how your MTR pans out. Please keep us posted. We filed a MTR back in 2005 for a PERM case that was denied because the salary was wrong on a job opening notice - we ended up winning the MTR and the case was approved but not until mid-2007. We have had some erroneous denials recently and are looking to file the motions to reconsider, so I would love to know your experience if you receive a decision.
I would definitely be interested to see how your MTR pans out. Please keep us posted. We filed a MTR back in 2005 for a PERM case that was denied because the salary was wrong on a job opening notice - we ended up winning the MTR and the case was approved but not until mid-2007. We have had some erroneous denials recently and are looking to file the motions to reconsider, so I would love to know your experience if you receive a decision.
2011 the New Sidekick LX 2009
desi3933
06-25 10:38 AM
Here is the reply from my attorney
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
cjain
08-10 03:45 PM
from AILA
http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23079&linkid=164409
http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23079&linkid=164409
hebron
06-14 03:09 PM
Refer this:
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
Thank you gc28262 for sharing that link. Very informative. I have a question though about that case study: This paragraph is confusing - "Raj learned that the CIS will not allow him to substitute his new I-140 into his pending EB3 adjustment of status (AOS) application. Instead, they require a new AOS filing. Knowing the the CIS can take years to process an AOS application, even when the applicant's priority date is current at all times, he decided to opt for overseas consular processing."
Does this infer that If my current employer decides to file EB2 PERM application and I-140, I will have to wait till the priority date (Priority date for the new EB2 PERM) becomes current? Can I not use my September 2004 priority date and file I-485?
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
Thank you gc28262 for sharing that link. Very informative. I have a question though about that case study: This paragraph is confusing - "Raj learned that the CIS will not allow him to substitute his new I-140 into his pending EB3 adjustment of status (AOS) application. Instead, they require a new AOS filing. Knowing the the CIS can take years to process an AOS application, even when the applicant's priority date is current at all times, he decided to opt for overseas consular processing."
Does this infer that If my current employer decides to file EB2 PERM application and I-140, I will have to wait till the priority date (Priority date for the new EB2 PERM) becomes current? Can I not use my September 2004 priority date and file I-485?
more...
small2006
08-20 02:38 PM
I gto the same response last week. They were so adamant in denying me the info that I got frustrated and hung up on her.:mad:
2010 Apparently, the Sidekick LX
pnjbindia
10-08 03:46 PM
There is no way to delay it. The only thing you could have done was, NOT send a document like employment letter, or didnt complete all vaccinations for medical. This wd generate an RFE, but at least wdnt catch you by surprise....
No. Is there any way to get it delayed till my marriage ?
No. Is there any way to get it delayed till my marriage ?
more...
InTheMoment
06-16 04:50 PM
I guess the initial question my miguy still remains unanswered.
His question was about the validity period of the card and the start date of that validity period that is printed on that card and not the date when you activate the EAD status.
any answers there ?
His question was about the validity period of the card and the start date of that validity period that is printed on that card and not the date when you activate the EAD status.
any answers there ?
hair T-Mobile Sidekick LX
Better_Days
11-03 06:20 PM
I disagree. I think that we will see an another attempt at CIR bill. Dems will want to capitalize on their surge among the hispanic bloc; see the comments by Nancy Palosi [sp?]. An attempt will be made to cast it as an aid for economy: to bring people out of shadows so that they can buy houses etc.
But then this is just my opinion which, like yours, is just an opinion. Heck even my 5 year old these days does not seem to hold my opinion in any regard :)
NOPE.
Earlier democrats had a reason of not getting things done [Bush's veto, filibuster...etc.etc]
Now nothing will get done, and they will have no reasons.
Welcome to world of politics my friend :)
But then this is just my opinion which, like yours, is just an opinion. Heck even my 5 year old these days does not seem to hold my opinion in any regard :)
NOPE.
Earlier democrats had a reason of not getting things done [Bush's veto, filibuster...etc.etc]
Now nothing will get done, and they will have no reasons.
Welcome to world of politics my friend :)
more...
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
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)
hot New-sidekick-lx
hoolahoous
09-15 06:23 PM
How about making it standard format. That will make it easy for admins/reporters to sum it up. For e.g. millions of dollars per year paid as taxes by people stuck in GC queue will make a good impact. And so would the average amount of years a person has to wait to get GC. So format could be
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
more...
house traditional Sidekick style
dollar500
08-02 11:27 PM
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Title I of Pub. L. 106 - 313 enacted on October 17, 2000) contained several provisions intended to increase the availability of Employment-based numbers. Pub. L. 106-313 recaptured those Employment-based numbers that were available but not used in Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, creating a �pool� of 130,107 numbers which could be allocated to applicants in the Employment First, Second, and Third preference categories once the annual Employment-based numerical limit has been reached. Approximately 101,000 of these �pool� numbers remain available for use during FY-1005. Pub. L. 106-313 also removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
Changes in CIS processing procedures during the past two years created a significant backlog of cases and a consequent reduction in demand for numbers.
During the time that the Employment-based categories have remained �Current� many tens of thousands of applicants have become eligible to file for adjustment of status. Last summer, CIS notified Congress of its intent to eliminate its current backlogs by the end of FY-2006. As a result of the CIS backlog reduction effort, we are now experiencing very heavy visa demand as CIS has begun to process cases to conclusion. Section 201(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that not more than 27 percent of the Employment-based annual limit may be used in each of the first three quarters of a fiscal year. Based on the current rate of demand, the 27 percent level for the first quarter of FY-2005 will be exceeded by the end of December.
It has therefore become necessary to impose an Employment-based Third preference cut-off date for January in order to limit number use during the second quarter. Many of the cases have priority dates that are several years old, and the cut-off date represents the first priority date that cannot be accommodated for final processing. The cut-off date will apply only to the following chargeability areas: China-mainland born, India, and Philippines. Cut-off date movement during the remainder of FY-2005 depends on the extent of future visa demand. No specific predictions are possible at this time.
Changes in CIS processing procedures during the past two years created a significant backlog of cases and a consequent reduction in demand for numbers.
During the time that the Employment-based categories have remained �Current� many tens of thousands of applicants have become eligible to file for adjustment of status. Last summer, CIS notified Congress of its intent to eliminate its current backlogs by the end of FY-2006. As a result of the CIS backlog reduction effort, we are now experiencing very heavy visa demand as CIS has begun to process cases to conclusion. Section 201(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that not more than 27 percent of the Employment-based annual limit may be used in each of the first three quarters of a fiscal year. Based on the current rate of demand, the 27 percent level for the first quarter of FY-2005 will be exceeded by the end of December.
It has therefore become necessary to impose an Employment-based Third preference cut-off date for January in order to limit number use during the second quarter. Many of the cases have priority dates that are several years old, and the cut-off date represents the first priority date that cannot be accommodated for final processing. The cut-off date will apply only to the following chargeability areas: China-mainland born, India, and Philippines. Cut-off date movement during the remainder of FY-2005 depends on the extent of future visa demand. No specific predictions are possible at this time.
tattoo Motorola Sidekick slide
ksairi
08-16 04:32 PM
Please?
more...
pictures The new sidekick 4
sanju
03-06 02:44 PM
Which bill? Passed where? More info please.
The greater danger in our lives is not that we set our aim too high and fail, but we set them too low, and still do.
.
The greater danger in our lives is not that we set our aim too high and fail, but we set them too low, and still do.
.
dresses Brand New T-Mobile Sidekick LX
nozerd
11-17 11:44 AM
Do you agree with this statement
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. If there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. If there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
more...
makeup frederika-mr-papika-sidekick-4
chanduv23
02-24 09:27 AM
Thank you theshiningsun and chanduv23.
Chanduv23 - You are right. I'm working for a consulting company and the contract is ending.
I want to clarify little more.
1. Will I receive NOID, if my employer revokes I140? Can I avoid it by filing AC21 before my existing employer cancels the I140?
2. Can I travel out of the country without the job? Will it cause any issue at the Port of Entry, if I use AP to enter US (but currently doesn't have the job in hand)?
Here is the whole meat - I have written about this probably 200 times.
You may receive NOID - yes - thats how it works. An employer sends a letter to the service center stating that the candidate has moved to a different job so does not want to hold this position and decided to eliminate the position. The officer then processes the request - usually this whole thing happens in 4 to 6 weeks after your employer sends the letter.
If you already sent a new employment letter from your new or prospective employer - chances are that it may end up in your file or not - we don't know how USCIS works internally. Even if your letter reaches your file, the officer processing your 140 revocation may not physically check your document folder, rather may rely on their online system which may not have any reference to AC21 change in job because AC21 is not a formal process.
Now, if you sent AC21 letter and it reaches the officer processing your 140 revocation, chances are that the officer may accept it or may want more information in form of an RFE so that the process looks standard, RFE or NOID is almost similar and in case of 140 revocations, they usually send NOID - which means you cannot withdraw your 485 and you have one shot at your 485 by responding to NOID.
In some cases the officer may send a denial on 485 - the denial will not have any reference to AC21 but clearly states that your 140 was revoked and therefore your 485 got denied. In such cases you have to file for a motion to reopen - this has happened a lot and continue to happen (though we do not see lately because lot of cases have been preadjudicated and not many 485s being filed or not many 140 revocations. Motions take anywhere from weeks to few months and you may need help from Ombudsman's office at times if it is getting delayed. Now when it comes to travel - if you travel when 485 is denied, you cannot come back and file for MTR - it gets complicated.
AC21 works just fine in most cases and people have navigated smoothly and usually the same or similar job has never been an issue as long as you are doing similar job. technically you don't need copy of labor as long as you know what you are doing. The job duties need not be a photo copy of earlier job but just be similar. Say if you are a .net programmer, you are fine if you are doing Java.
Good luck and don't panic. Do talk to a lawyer if you want and look for a good job. Fulltime jobs are taking a long time to get because employers are picky in this market with more supply than demand. Don't let your employer know you are looking for fulltime jobs - he may take instant revenge. It is not only consulting companies that we talk about and trash, but any employer looks for their interests - corporate world is greedy and selfish - one must know how to play.
Also remember, not all lawyers are ethical because it is a business to them and they will do what is in best interest of their business. You need to be smart and tricky. It is painful at times to deal with all the legal stuff when you want to progress, burt work your ways smartly.
If you want to travel without a job in hand, it is your choice, most times it is smooth, as long as your documents are intact, I think you will be fine, but there is always a risk. I would recommend to find a job and then travel.
Chanduv23 - You are right. I'm working for a consulting company and the contract is ending.
I want to clarify little more.
1. Will I receive NOID, if my employer revokes I140? Can I avoid it by filing AC21 before my existing employer cancels the I140?
2. Can I travel out of the country without the job? Will it cause any issue at the Port of Entry, if I use AP to enter US (but currently doesn't have the job in hand)?
Here is the whole meat - I have written about this probably 200 times.
You may receive NOID - yes - thats how it works. An employer sends a letter to the service center stating that the candidate has moved to a different job so does not want to hold this position and decided to eliminate the position. The officer then processes the request - usually this whole thing happens in 4 to 6 weeks after your employer sends the letter.
If you already sent a new employment letter from your new or prospective employer - chances are that it may end up in your file or not - we don't know how USCIS works internally. Even if your letter reaches your file, the officer processing your 140 revocation may not physically check your document folder, rather may rely on their online system which may not have any reference to AC21 change in job because AC21 is not a formal process.
Now, if you sent AC21 letter and it reaches the officer processing your 140 revocation, chances are that the officer may accept it or may want more information in form of an RFE so that the process looks standard, RFE or NOID is almost similar and in case of 140 revocations, they usually send NOID - which means you cannot withdraw your 485 and you have one shot at your 485 by responding to NOID.
In some cases the officer may send a denial on 485 - the denial will not have any reference to AC21 but clearly states that your 140 was revoked and therefore your 485 got denied. In such cases you have to file for a motion to reopen - this has happened a lot and continue to happen (though we do not see lately because lot of cases have been preadjudicated and not many 485s being filed or not many 140 revocations. Motions take anywhere from weeks to few months and you may need help from Ombudsman's office at times if it is getting delayed. Now when it comes to travel - if you travel when 485 is denied, you cannot come back and file for MTR - it gets complicated.
AC21 works just fine in most cases and people have navigated smoothly and usually the same or similar job has never been an issue as long as you are doing similar job. technically you don't need copy of labor as long as you know what you are doing. The job duties need not be a photo copy of earlier job but just be similar. Say if you are a .net programmer, you are fine if you are doing Java.
Good luck and don't panic. Do talk to a lawyer if you want and look for a good job. Fulltime jobs are taking a long time to get because employers are picky in this market with more supply than demand. Don't let your employer know you are looking for fulltime jobs - he may take instant revenge. It is not only consulting companies that we talk about and trash, but any employer looks for their interests - corporate world is greedy and selfish - one must know how to play.
Also remember, not all lawyers are ethical because it is a business to them and they will do what is in best interest of their business. You need to be smart and tricky. It is painful at times to deal with all the legal stuff when you want to progress, burt work your ways smartly.
If you want to travel without a job in hand, it is your choice, most times it is smooth, as long as your documents are intact, I think you will be fine, but there is always a risk. I would recommend to find a job and then travel.
girlfriend New T-Mobile Sidekick LX 2009
meridiani.planum
04-07 01:05 AM
It is worse than that.. :)
Please watch the following youtube video to understand how USCIS works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30BZtpvaTY
that was amazing. Is the maker of that video an IV member?
Please watch the following youtube video to understand how USCIS works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30BZtpvaTY
that was amazing. Is the maker of that video an IV member?
hairstyles Evidently the Sidekick Slide
(kC1QRBNMnOewLgQ~~_1.JPG%3Fset_id%3D8800005007 "NEW SIDEKICK LX 2009 CARBON")
sunny1000
01-02 04:59 PM
My husband, the primary applicant is a temporary non immigrant worker on H1B visa. I have been on an H4 status for the last 6 years since we relocated to the U.S. Our I-485 is on track and continued (visa availability). I've had an EAD for the past 3 years (renewed twice and now valid until 2012) but never used it, until recently...
I used my EAD very briefly and unfortunately had to leave my job due to personal reasons within 3 weeks of joining. Have I lost my H4 Status? What status am I on now? I want to travel to India in Feb-March. What procedure do I need to follow to make it happen. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Pria
Yes, you have lost your H4 status once you have used the EAD. Currently, you are in the middle of "adjustment of status" (AOS) from a non-immigrant to an immigrant.
In order to travel to India, you can apply for Advance Parole (AP) document, with your current AOS, for travel purposes. It takes approx 3 months to get AP. So, start your application asap.
CAUTION: DO NOT travel WITHOUT your APPROVED Advance Parole in hand or else your GC application is deemed abandoned (no exceptions).
Below is the link for Advance Parole:
USCIS - I-131, Application for Travel Document (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=b11747a55773d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
I used my EAD very briefly and unfortunately had to leave my job due to personal reasons within 3 weeks of joining. Have I lost my H4 Status? What status am I on now? I want to travel to India in Feb-March. What procedure do I need to follow to make it happen. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Pria
Yes, you have lost your H4 status once you have used the EAD. Currently, you are in the middle of "adjustment of status" (AOS) from a non-immigrant to an immigrant.
In order to travel to India, you can apply for Advance Parole (AP) document, with your current AOS, for travel purposes. It takes approx 3 months to get AP. So, start your application asap.
CAUTION: DO NOT travel WITHOUT your APPROVED Advance Parole in hand or else your GC application is deemed abandoned (no exceptions).
Below is the link for Advance Parole:
USCIS - I-131, Application for Travel Document (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=b11747a55773d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
jthomas
05-06 04:04 PM
ganguteli,
there was a donor conference call a couple of weeks back, in which aman, pappu etc participated.
your thoughts of rally was discussed, but unfortunately the numbers are not quiet adding up as it did during the July 2007 fiasco.
As per what I learned from that discussion was when IV sees the "thousands" as per your quote they are willing to support the rally idea. Otherwise, it may not make the noise as we expect it to do.
Yes, I agree with IV core's line of thought in the "rally" idea. I too wish we can do a "rally" but...:-(
I think we should have a rally or some major IV activity. In this case everybody would get together and for every next activity we may be able to see 10% more members. We should start with a smaller number and then grow bigger. (just a thought)
there was a donor conference call a couple of weeks back, in which aman, pappu etc participated.
your thoughts of rally was discussed, but unfortunately the numbers are not quiet adding up as it did during the July 2007 fiasco.
As per what I learned from that discussion was when IV sees the "thousands" as per your quote they are willing to support the rally idea. Otherwise, it may not make the noise as we expect it to do.
Yes, I agree with IV core's line of thought in the "rally" idea. I too wish we can do a "rally" but...:-(
I think we should have a rally or some major IV activity. In this case everybody would get together and for every next activity we may be able to see 10% more members. We should start with a smaller number and then grow bigger. (just a thought)
BEC_fog
05-27 11:55 AM
You can send a comment to QGA from their website if you want under the contact us link.