brij523
02-23 09:23 PM
Friends,
Please contact congress representative from your area before this meeting as time is less and work is more. It is not easy to get appointment with congress representative because of their busy schedule.
Please contact congress representative from your area before this meeting as time is less and work is more. It is not easy to get appointment with congress representative because of their busy schedule.
wallpaper Mila Kunis Black Swan Pictures
addsf345
11-21 02:52 PM
When did they receive GC approval? Is it recent or 1-2 years ago?
Both cases, more than 2 years ago. Do not know anyone who got this recently. One reason is most of us filed in during VB Gate, and most of us are still waiting for any action from CIS.
Both cases, more than 2 years ago. Do not know anyone who got this recently. One reason is most of us filed in during VB Gate, and most of us are still waiting for any action from CIS.
sandy_anand
10-04 01:30 PM
It was not supposed to be shown to Indians on IV
Did you not read on the page
[������ݴ���]EB3C����ֲ���DemandData(AoS&CP) - δ��ռ�(mitbbs.com) (http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t2/EB23/31236411.html)
BTW: Please do not let Indian know it :-)
Traitor.
I hope you were just kidding about the "traitor" comment :-)
Did you not read on the page
[������ݴ���]EB3C����ֲ���DemandData(AoS&CP) - δ��ռ�(mitbbs.com) (http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t2/EB23/31236411.html)
BTW: Please do not let Indian know it :-)
Traitor.
I hope you were just kidding about the "traitor" comment :-)
2011 lack swan quarter length
MrWaitingGC
06-23 09:00 PM
My priority date is EB2 Dec 2003 and I can file my 485 in June.However my spouse who is on vacation will be returning back to US on Mid July.
Considering the huge load of application that will be filed by the beginning of July , is it wise to:
1) File my 485 application in June (I have all my documentation ready including medical) and add my spouse application later or
2)Wait for for spouse to return and file together on the 3rd week of July.
Does the time gap of a couple of weeks make a huge difference in the processing of my application.
any insights please....
If your case approves in a day your wife will be out of status. I am pretty sure this will not happen. But wait for her to come and apply so that it will be safe.
Considering the huge load of application that will be filed by the beginning of July , is it wise to:
1) File my 485 application in June (I have all my documentation ready including medical) and add my spouse application later or
2)Wait for for spouse to return and file together on the 3rd week of July.
Does the time gap of a couple of weeks make a huge difference in the processing of my application.
any insights please....
If your case approves in a day your wife will be out of status. I am pretty sure this will not happen. But wait for her to come and apply so that it will be safe.
more...
mohanty99
07-23 04:04 PM
Standard answers to some questions, but they haven't answered some key questions such as in what order the applications will be adjudicated or how long it will take to issue receitps. :confused:
gondalguru
06-20 12:09 AM
All I can say is for J1 physician is different then regular J1 visa. If you are J1 physician you have to serve 3 years in an underserved area on H1b visa and then and then you can get your GC. If you file NIW for physician you can apply for I-140 and I-485 but you will get GC after 5 yrs of service in an underserved area.
more...
gg_ny
09-24 08:54 PM
I know this is not the original question asked, but I have heard that bad driving record surely does affect your green card processing!
Any criminal activity that pertains to driving would show up but the screening excludes traffic violations (parking, speeding, lane rule breaking, and other moving violations). In some states repeated rule breaking leads to criminal record, may be you have heard in that context. DUI, hit and run, not stopping for accidents, damage to public or private property and not reporting it etc. are also bad driving practices (if one survive any of them ;-)) and might lead to
criminal records and get flagged.
Any criminal activity that pertains to driving would show up but the screening excludes traffic violations (parking, speeding, lane rule breaking, and other moving violations). In some states repeated rule breaking leads to criminal record, may be you have heard in that context. DUI, hit and run, not stopping for accidents, damage to public or private property and not reporting it etc. are also bad driving practices (if one survive any of them ;-)) and might lead to
criminal records and get flagged.
2010 Mila Kunis Black Swan Pictures
jatinr
09-05 10:50 PM
[QUOTE=nirajnp;160331]Hi,
My Wife is currently on H1B, but for personal reason she wants to quit her job and take a break from work for some time. She plans to quit some time in october 2007. But she wants to start working again sometime next year around June 2008. So here are my questions:
1. When she quits her job in october 2007 is her status automatically changed to H4 or do we need to fill up an application to USCIS ?
No , you will have to fill I-539 - Change of Status form to change from H1 to H4, you have to provide your H1B credentials while applying your wife's H4 COS.
2. When she applies for H1B next year i.e. June 2008 will that be considered against the H1B cap ? If not, then can she apply around june next year to get her H1B, as opposed to applying early in April when the H1B quota gets full. Also if we apply in June 2008 will her start date be Oct 1'2008 or can she start working as soon as she receives her WAC/LIN number ?
Since it is not fresh H1B, she will be able to work on pending H1B status when applying from H4 to H1, her new H1B will not be from October, but rather from the time her status change from H4 to H1 is approved, you have to fill I-129 and I-539 forms.
3. When we apply for H1B next year will they require some H4 stamped on my wifes passport ? We dont plan to go out of the country for a couple of years so we will not be doing any stamping (H4). Currently she has her H1B stamped.
Appreciate your help.
Not it is not required, you will get approved H4 petition, but you will have to provide existing H1, new H4 petition while applying for new H1 and corresponding I-94's
Thanks
I am not a lawyer, am answering based on my limited knowledge on this subject
My Wife is currently on H1B, but for personal reason she wants to quit her job and take a break from work for some time. She plans to quit some time in october 2007. But she wants to start working again sometime next year around June 2008. So here are my questions:
1. When she quits her job in october 2007 is her status automatically changed to H4 or do we need to fill up an application to USCIS ?
No , you will have to fill I-539 - Change of Status form to change from H1 to H4, you have to provide your H1B credentials while applying your wife's H4 COS.
2. When she applies for H1B next year i.e. June 2008 will that be considered against the H1B cap ? If not, then can she apply around june next year to get her H1B, as opposed to applying early in April when the H1B quota gets full. Also if we apply in June 2008 will her start date be Oct 1'2008 or can she start working as soon as she receives her WAC/LIN number ?
Since it is not fresh H1B, she will be able to work on pending H1B status when applying from H4 to H1, her new H1B will not be from October, but rather from the time her status change from H4 to H1 is approved, you have to fill I-129 and I-539 forms.
3. When we apply for H1B next year will they require some H4 stamped on my wifes passport ? We dont plan to go out of the country for a couple of years so we will not be doing any stamping (H4). Currently she has her H1B stamped.
Appreciate your help.
Not it is not required, you will get approved H4 petition, but you will have to provide existing H1, new H4 petition while applying for new H1 and corresponding I-94's
Thanks
I am not a lawyer, am answering based on my limited knowledge on this subject
more...
vallabhu
06-11 03:31 PM
Do they assume that if you are in 7th year you can use your labor which you used for H1 7th year extension.
what about if i140 is denied on the previous labor and one cannot use that labor any more.
are all these bullet point are "ors" or "ands" does one has to staisfy all three conditions?
what about if i140 is denied on the previous labor and one cannot use that labor any more.
are all these bullet point are "ors" or "ands" does one has to staisfy all three conditions?
hair Mila Kunis Black Swan Pictures
inskrish
09-05 11:18 AM
Hi,
USCIS online status is not reliable. So, getting an Infopass appointment would help you get the actual case status. Best of luck!
USCIS online status is not reliable. So, getting an Infopass appointment would help you get the actual case status. Best of luck!
more...
485Mbe4001
02-10 05:11 PM
how can they approve 485's by 2010 if there are very limited visas available. Getting EAD or AP is not the end of the road. Final freedom is when you get the GC and that is not possible if unless we all lobby to change the law....I hope people understand that we are in for a very long wait if there is not change in the law, quota..
USCIS can simply say that they have eliminated backlogs by processing all applications.This does not IMPLY that all 2007 filers will have green cards in their hands.. Please understand thay my reply is not directed to you, instead it is in response to all the people i meet who expect to have GCs by 2010...its simply not possible with status quo.
Many point to track it and say that 485s are being approved out of turn. Please understand that this to is a load of crap, either some people are exteremly lucky or USCIS screwed up a small number of cases..the rest of us are in the same slow sinking boat to nowhere.
Take a look at this link. As per this, 2010 is the timeline promised by USCIS to clear all backlogs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_go_pr_wh/immigration_backlogs
USCIS can simply say that they have eliminated backlogs by processing all applications.This does not IMPLY that all 2007 filers will have green cards in their hands.. Please understand thay my reply is not directed to you, instead it is in response to all the people i meet who expect to have GCs by 2010...its simply not possible with status quo.
Many point to track it and say that 485s are being approved out of turn. Please understand that this to is a load of crap, either some people are exteremly lucky or USCIS screwed up a small number of cases..the rest of us are in the same slow sinking boat to nowhere.
Take a look at this link. As per this, 2010 is the timeline promised by USCIS to clear all backlogs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_go_pr_wh/immigration_backlogs
hot Black swan, Shrewsbury
vallabhu
01-14 12:22 PM
The source is Immigration-law.com
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
more...
house Black Swan Black Swan Rated quot;R
dilbert_cal
06-24 09:28 PM
Hi,
I wanted to know how critical are the tax returns for GC processing. I am asking this because i have filed the tax returns for 2006 as married even though i got married in January'07.
Now my marriage certificate reflects jan'07 and the tax return for 2006 was filed as joint.
Will this be of issue in the processing? Is there a way out from this, like readjust the tax returns?
Any help in this regard with be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Incorrect tax return will not necessarily impact your 485 application.
But knowingly filing an incorrect tax return may result in substantial fine if IRS figures it out. They do not have to necessarily find it this year - I believe an audit can be triggered anytime uptil about 7 years.
Saving 5000 dollars or so with an incorrect tax return is good if you can live in the fear of future audit for the next seven years.
The reason I stated "knowingly" filing an incorrect tax return is based on your statements. Clearly at this point you know your tax returns were wrong but because of penalty that you may have to pay, you dont want to amend it. Sure, if you are lucky , nothing will happen to you but thats not a chance I would like to take. Just my 2 cents.
I wanted to know how critical are the tax returns for GC processing. I am asking this because i have filed the tax returns for 2006 as married even though i got married in January'07.
Now my marriage certificate reflects jan'07 and the tax return for 2006 was filed as joint.
Will this be of issue in the processing? Is there a way out from this, like readjust the tax returns?
Any help in this regard with be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Incorrect tax return will not necessarily impact your 485 application.
But knowingly filing an incorrect tax return may result in substantial fine if IRS figures it out. They do not have to necessarily find it this year - I believe an audit can be triggered anytime uptil about 7 years.
Saving 5000 dollars or so with an incorrect tax return is good if you can live in the fear of future audit for the next seven years.
The reason I stated "knowingly" filing an incorrect tax return is based on your statements. Clearly at this point you know your tax returns were wrong but because of penalty that you may have to pay, you dont want to amend it. Sure, if you are lucky , nothing will happen to you but thats not a chance I would like to take. Just my 2 cents.
tattoo lack swan movie wallpaper.
Blog Feeds
01-09 02:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkb5_Gh3bi-e-k4fXkmLcWBt7xZmysLm0qyFw3SO3YeJen05Ys1r1I28PM_K_vr9l-WBMfZYu6-6Hhyphenhyphen-dm-k92l_dpmFOVGWweJZVW_txDdy4l-eiCSdqiVilpqisVwTZYbUkgvyMD30Q/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkb5_Gh3bi-e-k4fXkmLcWBt7xZmysLm0qyFw3SO3YeJen05Ys1r1I28PM_K_vr9l-WBMfZYu6-6Hhyphenhyphen-dm-k92l_dpmFOVGWweJZVW_txDdy4l-eiCSdqiVilpqisVwTZYbUkgvyMD30Q/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkb5_Gh3bi-e-k4fXkmLcWBt7xZmysLm0qyFw3SO3YeJen05Ys1r1I28PM_K_vr9l-WBMfZYu6-6Hhyphenhyphen-dm-k92l_dpmFOVGWweJZVW_txDdy4l-eiCSdqiVilpqisVwTZYbUkgvyMD30Q/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkb5_Gh3bi-e-k4fXkmLcWBt7xZmysLm0qyFw3SO3YeJen05Ys1r1I28PM_K_vr9l-WBMfZYu6-6Hhyphenhyphen-dm-k92l_dpmFOVGWweJZVW_txDdy4l-eiCSdqiVilpqisVwTZYbUkgvyMD30Q/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
more...
pictures Working on obtaining my quot;Black Swan Bodyquot;
Desertfox
05-20 03:32 AM
Few years ago I evaluated my 3-year engineering diploma from ECE to transfer some credits toward a bachelors degree at Arizona State University. It was evaluated as 10+2+1, and it clearly said that the US equivalency was High School Diploma with One Year of Undergraduate study. So it was not even equivalent to an Associates degree. However, I never had a H-1B visa and neither I work in IT, so I never had to run it through USCIS.
dresses turn into a lack swan?
noone2day78
07-19 08:58 AM
Read my posts on this subject in the archives and do not start new threads on the same topic. It helps keeping information in one place.
Hi Pappu,
I joined this forum in beginning of July and really have benefited big time with the wealth of information here...Hats of to you all for all the great work and recent accomplishments.
I have a question, that I haven't yet found an answer to...was wondering if you could help me out here...
If dependant is already on h1b (applied 485 through spouse as primary) and switches to ead, can the dependant get back to h1b incase primary applicants 485 is rejected / held up for a long time?
Hi Pappu,
I joined this forum in beginning of July and really have benefited big time with the wealth of information here...Hats of to you all for all the great work and recent accomplishments.
I have a question, that I haven't yet found an answer to...was wondering if you could help me out here...
If dependant is already on h1b (applied 485 through spouse as primary) and switches to ead, can the dependant get back to h1b incase primary applicants 485 is rejected / held up for a long time?
more...
makeup Black Swan fashion layout
calgirl
08-12 06:19 PM
Were these approved at NSC or TSC?
Both are following this rule would be encouraging..
Source:
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/172162219/
Posted by willcrack (74) 1 hour 51 minutes ago
OK...now guys, strictly speaking the memo does not say anything about "conditional" GC...in legal speak. Just that they could revoke it if the person is considered inadmissable after the Name Check results come back. "Conditional GC" per se has the support of the actual statute only for Married to citizen, EB5 investment GC's etc.
And now for those who feel that USCIS is not approving cases whose NC's are pending, I know 2 of my friends and I whose NC's were pending when the file was with the officer (and approved in a week) and in my case NC was pending even at 6:30pm eastern (when I called the second level IIO at the NCSC) the day before I got the CPO e-mail (next day at 9am).
I have also seen several cases where people have called/went to Infopass after they got the GC to find out whether the NC was cleared....and it was pending !
so this should throw away all apprehensions about the 180+ rule not being implemented out of the window...
Both are following this rule would be encouraging..
Source:
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/172162219/
Posted by willcrack (74) 1 hour 51 minutes ago
OK...now guys, strictly speaking the memo does not say anything about "conditional" GC...in legal speak. Just that they could revoke it if the person is considered inadmissable after the Name Check results come back. "Conditional GC" per se has the support of the actual statute only for Married to citizen, EB5 investment GC's etc.
And now for those who feel that USCIS is not approving cases whose NC's are pending, I know 2 of my friends and I whose NC's were pending when the file was with the officer (and approved in a week) and in my case NC was pending even at 6:30pm eastern (when I called the second level IIO at the NCSC) the day before I got the CPO e-mail (next day at 9am).
I have also seen several cases where people have called/went to Infopass after they got the GC to find out whether the NC was cleared....and it was pending !
so this should throw away all apprehensions about the 180+ rule not being implemented out of the window...
girlfriend Black Swan Look by Bethiesue
summitpointe
04-27 02:24 PM
Six years in US complete
I-140 approved
Not able to file I-485 because of retrogression
Wife not able to work
Moving around for jobs with family
Cheating Employer
Frustation with H1B Extension and stamping
Not able to Plan to go to India because of Interview dates
Not able to plan on good school Child's education
Not able to spend more money on good health insurance
Lot of money spent on H1B Extension and stamping
Sick with the current employer
Don't want my employer to take lot of money in between. Can we switch employer and file a new H1B with new employer.
Do you guys think the retrogression will end soon? frustration everyday.
I-140 approved
Not able to file I-485 because of retrogression
Wife not able to work
Moving around for jobs with family
Cheating Employer
Frustation with H1B Extension and stamping
Not able to Plan to go to India because of Interview dates
Not able to plan on good school Child's education
Not able to spend more money on good health insurance
Lot of money spent on H1B Extension and stamping
Sick with the current employer
Don't want my employer to take lot of money in between. Can we switch employer and file a new H1B with new employer.
Do you guys think the retrogression will end soon? frustration everyday.
hairstyles lack swan poster natalie
gc_rip
06-18 12:48 PM
Hi Gurus,
Please comment on my situation.
My current job, 140 is approved, and employer ready to file 485. But there is also a risk of layoff in coming 2 months. Employer won't revoke I-140, if he had to let me go.
I have another employer interested and has filed H1 transfer. I am in the 7th year of H1.
If I let current employer file I-485, and also get EAD/AP. Then if laid off after 2 months, and new employer ready to wait for 2 months from now, understanding the situation.
1. Can I join the new employer on H1, after 2 months. Will can cancel my I-485 processing automatically, even though the employer did not revoke the I-140?
2. Should I join the new employer on EAD, which will be approved for 1 year by then? Will there be risk of violation of AC21, and 485 or EAD renewal being rejected at later stage? And what would be a fall-back strategy in such case?
3. Just join the new employer, as it will be stable job. and not worry about the 485 date. It will be current again next year.
4. Is there any information, how the AC-21 works? Is it automatic, or do I need to file for some documents when I switch jobs. That would prevent me from taking any job before 6 months. But I may be laid off in 2 months.
Thanks in advance!
Please comment on my situation.
My current job, 140 is approved, and employer ready to file 485. But there is also a risk of layoff in coming 2 months. Employer won't revoke I-140, if he had to let me go.
I have another employer interested and has filed H1 transfer. I am in the 7th year of H1.
If I let current employer file I-485, and also get EAD/AP. Then if laid off after 2 months, and new employer ready to wait for 2 months from now, understanding the situation.
1. Can I join the new employer on H1, after 2 months. Will can cancel my I-485 processing automatically, even though the employer did not revoke the I-140?
2. Should I join the new employer on EAD, which will be approved for 1 year by then? Will there be risk of violation of AC21, and 485 or EAD renewal being rejected at later stage? And what would be a fall-back strategy in such case?
3. Just join the new employer, as it will be stable job. and not worry about the 485 date. It will be current again next year.
4. Is there any information, how the AC-21 works? Is it automatic, or do I need to file for some documents when I switch jobs. That would prevent me from taking any job before 6 months. But I may be laid off in 2 months.
Thanks in advance!
rheoretro
09-13 05:22 PM
my american colleagues do know about immigration problem.....they dont give a jack.........afterall they dont even socialize much with co-workers....i am here in alabama.......i dont know how it is in other places...
I can't help you because of your situation. Much better in other places.
I can't help you because of your situation. Much better in other places.
map_boiler
04-28 11:22 AM
...that the new job is similar or related to the pending I-485 application.
Also, I was reading on the murthy forum that you would need to file your intent of invoking AC21 with USCIS. If you don't file your intent with USCIS, they may deny the I-485 application if your current employer revoked the approved I-140. As per rules, If you file your intent for invoking AC21 with USCIS, your current employer will NOT be able to revoke the I-140.
Even with letting USCIS know, they're known to have issued denials by mistake or in some cases, NOID's (Notice of Intent to Deny) after the employer filed to revoke the I-140. Proceed cautiously and consult your immigration attorney before you do anything.
Good luck!
Also, I was reading on the murthy forum that you would need to file your intent of invoking AC21 with USCIS. If you don't file your intent with USCIS, they may deny the I-485 application if your current employer revoked the approved I-140. As per rules, If you file your intent for invoking AC21 with USCIS, your current employer will NOT be able to revoke the I-140.
Even with letting USCIS know, they're known to have issued denials by mistake or in some cases, NOID's (Notice of Intent to Deny) after the employer filed to revoke the I-140. Proceed cautiously and consult your immigration attorney before you do anything.
Good luck!
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий