helph1b
08-28 07:03 AM
Hi Vani,
Even I have not yet received receipt number for the H1 application filed on 7-April-2009 by my employer in NJ USA. I was also given fedex tracking number for the application that was sent on 7-April-2009. But there is really no clue if the packet sent was really mine. So we are hopeless.
Are you still in contact with your employer about the H1 application case?
Let me know if you get any updates.
Even I have not yet received receipt number for the H1 application filed on 7-April-2009 by my employer in NJ USA. I was also given fedex tracking number for the application that was sent on 7-April-2009. But there is really no clue if the packet sent was really mine. So we are hopeless.
Are you still in contact with your employer about the H1 application case?
Let me know if you get any updates.
meridiani.planum
09-21 02:15 PM
sri1309..Thanks for your reply but can we get homes for 300 to 400 k there. How about bay area
proper bay area in any decent neighbourhood is going to run anywhere from 600K-2million. For 400k I think the only places in south bay would be either parts of south san jose or Milpitas. Neighborhood is not going to bevery nice.
Another option (depending on where you are working) could be part-way up the bay, say union city, or San Ramon.
Check ziprealty.com
proper bay area in any decent neighbourhood is going to run anywhere from 600K-2million. For 400k I think the only places in south bay would be either parts of south san jose or Milpitas. Neighborhood is not going to bevery nice.
Another option (depending on where you are working) could be part-way up the bay, say union city, or San Ramon.
Check ziprealty.com
ashwinicool67
04-28 02:55 PM
Anyone??
green_card_curious
03-08 12:15 PM
Thanks Drak. My attorney states otherwise though. He states that I-485 will be denied only after the ultimate denial of the I-140, which he says might take even about a year, and that in the mean time, I-485 will be valid and that she can continue to work on EAD.
P E R P L E X E D !!
P E R P L E X E D !!
more...
nat23
03-14 02:19 PM
hello,
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
When is your mother coming over? Whats her port of entry? My wife will be coming from Bangalore on May 20th through Lufthansa.
To answer your question: You DONT need a transit visa if you have a valid US visa.
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
When is your mother coming over? Whats her port of entry? My wife will be coming from Bangalore on May 20th through Lufthansa.
To answer your question: You DONT need a transit visa if you have a valid US visa.
waitnwatch
05-17 10:44 PM
That is true. This thing called "special handling" in common parlance is, thank god, not a hot topic of discussion. I hope this clause doesn't get weeded out given the current scenario where they have killed F4. I really wonder if "highly skilled" legal immigrants would ultimately get any benefit out of this bill. Limboland is where many people are - and at the end of the day you still get to live in Limboland and become its citizens by default.
My two cents! :( :(
My two cents! :( :(
more...
dealsnet
08-04 01:51 PM
She have the H-4 because of her husband. If he want to cancel, he can inform USCIS about the separation. The USCIS can cancel her H-4 and she will be out of status. Just like employer can cancel the H1B. If he didn't cancel, she can stay untill the validity of her I-94.
USCIS will approve the GC, when they satisfy the spouse is living with the petitioner and every thing in order and without any problem (joint tax, bank accounts etc....).
That is why they again send RFE for some people.
Even family based GC after marriage there will be an interview after years to get the permanent GC. In that interview, judge will ask and find out what level of intimacy these couples have. He want to satisfy these people are real husband and wife. (this interview is not for employment based candidates)
If she is on H4, as long as H1 is valid she can continue legally in US. I do not see any reason for her to go back.
She can file I-485 as a dependent, since she is still the wife of the I-485 primary applicant.
USCIS will approve the GC, when they satisfy the spouse is living with the petitioner and every thing in order and without any problem (joint tax, bank accounts etc....).
That is why they again send RFE for some people.
Even family based GC after marriage there will be an interview after years to get the permanent GC. In that interview, judge will ask and find out what level of intimacy these couples have. He want to satisfy these people are real husband and wife. (this interview is not for employment based candidates)
If she is on H4, as long as H1 is valid she can continue legally in US. I do not see any reason for her to go back.
She can file I-485 as a dependent, since she is still the wife of the I-485 primary applicant.
Dhundhun
07-16 07:29 PM
seee SFO website...they issue PCC is upto 45 days, I think...
cgisf.org - even better call them
Won't SFO charge $20. Isn't it more than Rs 800. Tinku01 knows from where to buy for Rs100 to Rs200.
cgisf.org - even better call them
Won't SFO charge $20. Isn't it more than Rs 800. Tinku01 knows from where to buy for Rs100 to Rs200.
more...
SFGREG
February 2nd, 2004, 10:53 PM
Hi,
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
GCNaseeb
11-04 10:46 AM
Initially my last name was misspelled on my I-485, I-131 and I-765 Receipt Notices. My Attorney sent a letter to USCIS informing the typo to correct it. USCIS sent me the letter saying that the typo error has been attached to my case. When I called USCIS for my FP Notice last week, I mentioned the IO that my Last Name is mis-spelled. But the IO instead of correcting it just on my case , he changed on all other 3 derivative cases with the same mispelled Last Name. Our FP is scheduled next friday. Now we have all our FP Notices with misspelled Last Name. I am going to call USCIS tomorrow. Also I read in other thread that, you don't need any tracking number for your FP. Here's the thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13522
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13522
more...
Jaime
09-14 03:56 PM
Whats the 30,000? I'm not listening
anirudh74
08-08 09:19 PM
I am sorry to say , but I have not seen any results from IV as well , they seem to be in the same boat as us, wait , wait and wait more, things will take care of themselves over time, seems to be the strategy.
more...
Bhaskar_80
06-17 04:25 PM
Mr.gnutin or any other expert,
Can you please confirm whether I have to stick with the company for 180 days after the 140 approval, if i am planning to change the job to port the Priority date?
Thanks
Can you please confirm whether I have to stick with the company for 180 days after the 140 approval, if i am planning to change the job to port the Priority date?
Thanks
meridiani.planum
06-02 12:13 PM
Unless I am mistaken, this was true only for non-PERM scenario if you were already employed for the firm that sponsored your GC.
In the case when your sponsoring employer is the same as the H1B employer, under PERM, you are supposed to be paid no less than 100% of the prevailing wage that is mentioned in your LC at the time the LC is filed.
Here is a posting I found from a while ago on this..
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2994050912&m=1621048341
afaik it still does not matter. As long as the job is a future position, then salary can be anything. PERM made one change in LC wage requirement, and that was to make it >= 100% of the prevailing wage in that area for that position (used to be 95% earlier).
In the case when your sponsoring employer is the same as the H1B employer, under PERM, you are supposed to be paid no less than 100% of the prevailing wage that is mentioned in your LC at the time the LC is filed.
Here is a posting I found from a while ago on this..
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2994050912&m=1621048341
afaik it still does not matter. As long as the job is a future position, then salary can be anything. PERM made one change in LC wage requirement, and that was to make it >= 100% of the prevailing wage in that area for that position (used to be 95% earlier).
more...
unitednations
02-28 11:41 AM
hey unitednations:
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
Danger for you is when she goes for the f-1 they also cancel the visitors visa.
Some people try to get spouse on h-1b and then wait for primary to get citizenship and then file greencard that way.
Others; are willing to let spouse come to usa on business/visitors visa and then overstay and not go back home until primary gets citizenship and sponsorship through this route.
There isn't a whole lot of attractive avenues for greencard holders trying to bring in non immigrant spouse.
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
Danger for you is when she goes for the f-1 they also cancel the visitors visa.
Some people try to get spouse on h-1b and then wait for primary to get citizenship and then file greencard that way.
Others; are willing to let spouse come to usa on business/visitors visa and then overstay and not go back home until primary gets citizenship and sponsorship through this route.
There isn't a whole lot of attractive avenues for greencard holders trying to bring in non immigrant spouse.
a1b2c3
12-19 11:39 AM
If you think you displaced some americans, please give back their jobs and leave the country.:rolleyes:. Your GC status need not stop you from doing so.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
more...
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
morchu
04-22 09:48 AM
Yes to both questions.
Priority date can be retained only after 140 approval.
I have seen PERM applications get approved with multiple locations mentioned.
But it is on a case by case basis. You may need to prove the requirement for multiple location.
Thanks Morchu for clarifying this. I do not want to be unlawful at anytime. That's why I am trying to understand this process as best as possible and then plan accordingly. so when you say this "You are NOT loosing "anything" by filing a second LC at the new location. You keep your priority date, and PERM is fast and I-140 processing time is 4 months or so" the only way to retain priority date is with approved I-140 .
Secondly, I read online either at this forum or at Murthy that one can include as part of "ETA form 9089" (Application for Permanent Employment Certification) a clause which states that the person "may be assigned to various, unanticipated sites throughout the United States". Is it true? And is it used widely by employers to retain flexibility?
Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!
Priority date can be retained only after 140 approval.
I have seen PERM applications get approved with multiple locations mentioned.
But it is on a case by case basis. You may need to prove the requirement for multiple location.
Thanks Morchu for clarifying this. I do not want to be unlawful at anytime. That's why I am trying to understand this process as best as possible and then plan accordingly. so when you say this "You are NOT loosing "anything" by filing a second LC at the new location. You keep your priority date, and PERM is fast and I-140 processing time is 4 months or so" the only way to retain priority date is with approved I-140 .
Secondly, I read online either at this forum or at Murthy that one can include as part of "ETA form 9089" (Application for Permanent Employment Certification) a clause which states that the person "may be assigned to various, unanticipated sites throughout the United States". Is it true? And is it used widely by employers to retain flexibility?
Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!
GeetaRam
06-14 03:47 PM
very useful link... even I didn't get why they mentioned foreign consular processing... what exactly that mean ? I also have question
I am working with my employer from 2005 to till date. My green card was filed in EB3 cateogory with in 2007 and priority date is March 2005. Before I started working for my currently I have worked for more than 5+ years in India with real experience from companies like IBM, Knabay. My employer is ready to file my GC in EB2 category considering those experience as my current experience with him doesn't get considered if for EB2 Bachlors + 5 + years. I have BE in Computer Science + total 10 years of experience. As I hear mixed review for the same that porting between EB3 to EB2 with same employer... I am considering option to change employer but my question is. I have my I-140 approved thru current employer but my I-485 application hasn't been filed. What if my current employer revoke my I-140 can I still use the same priority date.... Please advice/help.
I am working with my employer from 2005 to till date. My green card was filed in EB3 cateogory with in 2007 and priority date is March 2005. Before I started working for my currently I have worked for more than 5+ years in India with real experience from companies like IBM, Knabay. My employer is ready to file my GC in EB2 category considering those experience as my current experience with him doesn't get considered if for EB2 Bachlors + 5 + years. I have BE in Computer Science + total 10 years of experience. As I hear mixed review for the same that porting between EB3 to EB2 with same employer... I am considering option to change employer but my question is. I have my I-140 approved thru current employer but my I-485 application hasn't been filed. What if my current employer revoke my I-140 can I still use the same priority date.... Please advice/help.
kumarc123
01-15 03:55 PM
I agree.
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
Guys please call her office number and speak to someone in immigration and request them for her to re-introduce visa recapture bill.
Please lets focus on this, please call, also include your intentions of buying homes.
Please Call
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
Guys please call her office number and speak to someone in immigration and request them for her to re-introduce visa recapture bill.
Please lets focus on this, please call, also include your intentions of buying homes.
Please Call
shankar_thanu
08-05 12:47 PM
RD: July 2nd
PD: Oct 2005
ND: Aug 24 2008
EB2 I
Someone in another thread posted saying TSC IO said they are processing by ND...
PD: Oct 2005
ND: Aug 24 2008
EB2 I
Someone in another thread posted saying TSC IO said they are processing by ND...
No comments:
Post a Comment