immi_grant
06-25 06:47 AM
Hi Gurus / Attorneys,
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
shahuja
02-06 09:02 PM
hello ..EVERYBODY..need help..
this is the email came from my lawyer today..for the inquiry they did with the consulate regarding my visa.
Hi Shweta,
We understand how frustrating this is for you. We received a response to our inquiry with the consulate. It seems the application is being kept pending for additional administrative processing. The stated reason for the review falls within the law under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, we typically see that the government issues a notice to the applicant wherein additional information is often requested. Kindly advise if you have received any notification from the consulate on this issue.
Best regards,
IS ADMIN PROC DIFFERENT FROM ADD ADMIN PROC ???
also the same day i called DOS and they told me case was approved already in jan..so that means that now more processing needs to be done ??
ADVICE ??
this is the email came from my lawyer today..for the inquiry they did with the consulate regarding my visa.
Hi Shweta,
We understand how frustrating this is for you. We received a response to our inquiry with the consulate. It seems the application is being kept pending for additional administrative processing. The stated reason for the review falls within the law under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, we typically see that the government issues a notice to the applicant wherein additional information is often requested. Kindly advise if you have received any notification from the consulate on this issue.
Best regards,
IS ADMIN PROC DIFFERENT FROM ADD ADMIN PROC ???
also the same day i called DOS and they told me case was approved already in jan..so that means that now more processing needs to be done ??
ADVICE ??
EndlessWait
06-18 04:00 PM
Under Part 3.
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
ramaa
06-21 11:00 PM
Thank you for reply.
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
more...
yabayaba
11-17 01:07 PM
Could you update your profile?
priti8888
08-16 11:09 AM
Most IO in India are not aware of "AP"...They ask if you have a GC , H1B ,F1 or tourist visa. Here's what we and our friends have done and it works..
Make a copy of AP and highlight the sentence where it mentions that "this person is allowed to travel....blah blah...". Paper clip the original AP along with it . The IO will cautiosly compare the original to the duplicate.And tell them that you are in the Final stage of GC process...
They have only few mins to look over all your docs...(PP, AP,EAD..Etc...so you might as well help them by highlighting what exactly he needs to see.
Make a copy of AP and highlight the sentence where it mentions that "this person is allowed to travel....blah blah...". Paper clip the original AP along with it . The IO will cautiosly compare the original to the duplicate.And tell them that you are in the Final stage of GC process...
They have only few mins to look over all your docs...(PP, AP,EAD..Etc...so you might as well help them by highlighting what exactly he needs to see.
more...
gccovet
11-03 08:10 AM
Sorry if this question has been answered already. I searched and could not find any related threads.
My H1B is expiring in December (6 years). My 140 is approved and 485 is pending. I have my EAD card but still working on H1B. I can get a 3 year extension for my H1b as 140 is approved.
My priority date is Feb 2007.
Is it a good idea to renew my H1B even though I already have My EAD?
If I get the H1B extension, would I need visa stamping or can I use AP travel document and still be on H1B?
TIA for the responses.
I agree with meridiani.planum. H1 is better then EAD, you maintain status incase of 485 denial etc.
Also, there is no cap on h1 extensions. A person can get 3 year extension only 1 time after 6th years on H1 being 140 pending > 1 year or approved and 485 pending .
I also would request you to spare some time and send in 4 letters in support of fight against AC21 cases getting denied.
for your reference, check out http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182
Thank you for your time,
GCCovet
My H1B is expiring in December (6 years). My 140 is approved and 485 is pending. I have my EAD card but still working on H1B. I can get a 3 year extension for my H1b as 140 is approved.
My priority date is Feb 2007.
Is it a good idea to renew my H1B even though I already have My EAD?
If I get the H1B extension, would I need visa stamping or can I use AP travel document and still be on H1B?
TIA for the responses.
I agree with meridiani.planum. H1 is better then EAD, you maintain status incase of 485 denial etc.
Also, there is no cap on h1 extensions. A person can get 3 year extension only 1 time after 6th years on H1 being 140 pending > 1 year or approved and 485 pending .
I also would request you to spare some time and send in 4 letters in support of fight against AC21 cases getting denied.
for your reference, check out http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182
Thank you for your time,
GCCovet
belmontboy
11-03 09:14 PM
You have to be either hard right or hard left to move things around, Obama is neither w.r.t immigration. So don't expect wonders :)
more...
BharatPremi
10-13 02:45 AM
Hi Guys,
I Fedex my 485 package on July, 11th and it got reached to USCIS on July, 12 (I have the acknolegement) but still did not receive the receipt number. I am seeing who filed after me started getting receipt numbers.
I am kind of concerned about it as I did not see any movement in my case.
Any inputs Or wondering if anybody else facing similar situation??????
Appreciate your inputs.
Thanks,
M
1) Call USCIS
2) INofrm that you filed 90 days before.
I Fedex my 485 package on July, 11th and it got reached to USCIS on July, 12 (I have the acknolegement) but still did not receive the receipt number. I am seeing who filed after me started getting receipt numbers.
I am kind of concerned about it as I did not see any movement in my case.
Any inputs Or wondering if anybody else facing similar situation??????
Appreciate your inputs.
Thanks,
M
1) Call USCIS
2) INofrm that you filed 90 days before.
Gravitation
06-22 10:01 AM
There are not enough numbers in the house to pass CIR. It may be pushed in Senate for political reasons and may pass easily, but there's no such hope -whatsoever- in the House.
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
more...
rajenk
07-16 12:49 PM
Thanks a lot Raj.
One more question. Does current company give you any originals when your I-140 is approved? If so, I was not given any. I was just told by the company attorney by mail saying that my I-140 is approved. So now, what exactly should I ask for? Appreciate if you can list all the required documents.
Thanks again for answering so promptly.
CAH
Below are the documents that you need to get from your previous attorney/Employer.
1. Legible copy of your approved labor that you and your HR had signed.
2. Legible copy of the Approved Original I-140. You will not get this original because it is solely Employer's document. Some times you will receive a Courtesy copy, but that will be like any other I-797,that is not the original, in that they will say "Courtesy Copy: Original sent to : <your attorney's name>"
3. Copy of all H1-B approvals (I-797) to have records of your legal stay in US.
That is all you need.
Make sure to transfer your H1-B to your new employer.
Good luck.
Raj:)
One more question. Does current company give you any originals when your I-140 is approved? If so, I was not given any. I was just told by the company attorney by mail saying that my I-140 is approved. So now, what exactly should I ask for? Appreciate if you can list all the required documents.
Thanks again for answering so promptly.
CAH
Below are the documents that you need to get from your previous attorney/Employer.
1. Legible copy of your approved labor that you and your HR had signed.
2. Legible copy of the Approved Original I-140. You will not get this original because it is solely Employer's document. Some times you will receive a Courtesy copy, but that will be like any other I-797,that is not the original, in that they will say "Courtesy Copy: Original sent to : <your attorney's name>"
3. Copy of all H1-B approvals (I-797) to have records of your legal stay in US.
That is all you need.
Make sure to transfer your H1-B to your new employer.
Good luck.
Raj:)
sunnymit
06-23 11:02 AM
In your first post you said you were not from europe which is why greyhair asked you for your country of birth.
Anyway, being from Europe will put you in the ROW (Rest of the World) category and based on the last visa bulletin (Visa Bulletin for July 2010 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5019.html)) the priority date for EB3 is 15AUG03 where as EB2 is Current. If you can file in EB2 all is well for you, if not, then based on the priority date for EB3 it will take a long time for you to get the GC. Keep in mind though that ROW is not as bad as some other countries like India and China but the fact that it is currently in 03 indicates that there is certainly a backlog that needs to be cleared before the dates get current.
Hope that helps..
Anyway, being from Europe will put you in the ROW (Rest of the World) category and based on the last visa bulletin (Visa Bulletin for July 2010 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5019.html)) the priority date for EB3 is 15AUG03 where as EB2 is Current. If you can file in EB2 all is well for you, if not, then based on the priority date for EB3 it will take a long time for you to get the GC. Keep in mind though that ROW is not as bad as some other countries like India and China but the fact that it is currently in 03 indicates that there is certainly a backlog that needs to be cleared before the dates get current.
Hope that helps..
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)
rjgleason
June 4th, 2004, 08:31 PM
I immediately thought of the Seinfeld Episode: Bubble Boy
more...
houston2005
03-05 09:30 PM
We cannot justify the opposition to price increase as INS expects the fees to be paid by employer. So if needed employers can oppose not the employees. Only fees the candidates expect to pay is citizenship fees and all other immigration related fees should be paid by Employers as they are sponsoring gc
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
rbms
03-06 05:26 PM
Two responses
more...
Satya123
03-16 05:26 PM
Hi,
My wife's H4 visa got denied and her I94 got expired. Can she stay for 30 days if so will she be having any problem while coming back with valid status?
My wife's H4 visa got denied and her I94 got expired. Can she stay for 30 days if so will she be having any problem while coming back with valid status?
felix31
02-12 05:41 PM
both H1 and H4 extension are filed together regularly.
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
pappu
07-20 05:10 PM
I asked this question several times, this is what the answer I got.
To get L-1 visa, you need to work for sister or parent company for a year outside USA. Here is the problem come.
I am on the Same boat, How care about GC. But I care about my wife's work authorisation, she has done her Ph.D and completed her 6 year H-4 too. Even if some one offers her H-1B she cannot take up, until there is a decoupling of H-1 and H-4
if your wife has no time left on her H visa, and she is a phd. .. she can do research on J1 visa. She can work and also apply for greencard.
To get L-1 visa, you need to work for sister or parent company for a year outside USA. Here is the problem come.
I am on the Same boat, How care about GC. But I care about my wife's work authorisation, she has done her Ph.D and completed her 6 year H-4 too. Even if some one offers her H-1B she cannot take up, until there is a decoupling of H-1 and H-4
if your wife has no time left on her H visa, and she is a phd. .. she can do research on J1 visa. She can work and also apply for greencard.
wandmaker
09-03 03:33 PM
what if the company revokes the I140 ??? Do i still hold the original priority date . I have checked out various forums and it seems there seems to be some confusion regarding the I140 revocation aspect.
Any pointers would be highly appreciated-
thnx
-A
You loose your PD. BTW, please update your profile.
Any pointers would be highly appreciated-
thnx
-A
You loose your PD. BTW, please update your profile.
shantak
04-29 02:19 PM
You are missing a point here. I am on H1 through another desi firm. I stayed with them for 3 years and now my extension is coming up.My spouse's PD is May 2006 , his I-140 is approved and luckily he was able to apply for AOS last year during July fiasco. So I was able to apply for AOS as derivative on his 485. But because it is advisable that to maintain non-immigrant status while our AOS is pending I am confused whether to extend my H1 through my employer or use EAD that I got through my spouse. As you all know being able to apply for aos was very lucky opportunity last year and I do not want to mess up my aos application in anyway. I am concerned that if I am not able to respond to RFE in my H1 extension , it will affect my aos if they dig up my past.
I would not get too much worried, firstly apply for H1 extension, if by any chance you get an RFE and if you think you will not be able to answer it then withdraw the petition and shift to EAD.
I would not get too much worried, firstly apply for H1 extension, if by any chance you get an RFE and if you think you will not be able to answer it then withdraw the petition and shift to EAD.
No comments:
Post a Comment