Ann Ruben
03-08 07:10 AM
Hi Prem,
Your sister will certainly be subject to greater scrutiny if she returns immediately to the US after an extended stay. Whether she is is ultimately admitted to the US or denied admission and sent back home really depends on several factors. First, can your sister persuasively demonstrate that she has strong ties to her home in India, to which she intends to return at the conclusion of her business trip? Next, can she document that she will be engaged in permissible B-1 activities of limited duration? And finally, on what side of the bed did the CBE officer wake up?
Your sister will certainly be subject to greater scrutiny if she returns immediately to the US after an extended stay. Whether she is is ultimately admitted to the US or denied admission and sent back home really depends on several factors. First, can your sister persuasively demonstrate that she has strong ties to her home in India, to which she intends to return at the conclusion of her business trip? Next, can she document that she will be engaged in permissible B-1 activities of limited duration? And finally, on what side of the bed did the CBE officer wake up?
styrum
02-25 02:39 PM
Literally this means that by now they have processed only those applications, for which priority dates are current and they had been filed before April 2007. But they are outright lying! I personally know a EB3 guy who filed 140 premium and 485 in May 2007 and got GC before the July fiasco.
Who beleives that since the last June frenzie (66000 approvals in one month so that they "have used" all the quota for 2007) and 7 months after that they didn't process anything beyond April? I don't!
You see, it means the haven't been processing any applications since at least June 2007! :mad:
Yes, even with priority dates current we are now stuck in the "processing backlog" which they expect to clear by the end of 2010 according to our "friend" USCIS Gonzales, because "there were too many applications filed in June-August", See? it's all our fault again.
Who beleives that since the last June frenzie (66000 approvals in one month so that they "have used" all the quota for 2007) and 7 months after that they didn't process anything beyond April? I don't!
You see, it means the haven't been processing any applications since at least June 2007! :mad:
Yes, even with priority dates current we are now stuck in the "processing backlog" which they expect to clear by the end of 2010 according to our "friend" USCIS Gonzales, because "there were too many applications filed in June-August", See? it's all our fault again.
johnamit
07-17 02:55 PM
opening new threads like this is annoying, I see lots of useless thread around here which discourages me to come to IV that often. He is asking update from CORE like they owe him, he must have paid his attorney and should attorney in such way not here. Whenever core has something to share they do share, no doubts.
chantu
06-15 10:45 AM
What if H1-B extension is for last 3 years of total 6 years? It means,my first 3 years are ending in nov 07, and if I file 485, will I get 3 years of extension or 1 yr extension?
more...
ticktoe
09-06 02:06 PM
Doesn't matter. MS+0 works just fine. (My EB-2 was MS+0).
The biggest issue is that just with MS, IS NOT HARD TO REFUTE OTHER RESUMES. EVEN IF SOME ONE WITH A MS+6 MONTHS apply to the ad. Then it will be hard for me to justify. That's what makes me little uncomfortable here.
But how did you manage to justify that you have enough knowledge/experience for that job. Did you use any particular course material or project work or anything of that kind against some one who applied for your ad ?
Please do let me know your experience. It will greatly help me.
Thanks
The biggest issue is that just with MS, IS NOT HARD TO REFUTE OTHER RESUMES. EVEN IF SOME ONE WITH A MS+6 MONTHS apply to the ad. Then it will be hard for me to justify. That's what makes me little uncomfortable here.
But how did you manage to justify that you have enough knowledge/experience for that job. Did you use any particular course material or project work or anything of that kind against some one who applied for your ad ?
Please do let me know your experience. It will greatly help me.
Thanks
ArunAntonio
05-14 07:14 PM
'Cautious Optimism' are the key words folks ;)
-- as some else put it in another post .. this has not cured us of the retrogression ailment, this is just a pain killer.
We should move ahead as planned. My support for IV core as usual.
-- as some else put it in another post .. this has not cured us of the retrogression ailment, this is just a pain killer.
We should move ahead as planned. My support for IV core as usual.
more...
kutra
07-21 04:04 PM
Why does USCIS want TB test done? Many countries like India have BCG vaccination administered at childhood thus preventing TB. However, such people will show a false positive if administered a skin test for TB.
This is causing many Indians to go for a chest xray. I feel this is a ridiculous requirement.
True, however...
USCIS SOP clearly states that a TB SKin test is required. Last year during the July fiasco, I remember Murthy had an article that said if you ONLY submit a chest x-ray, you will still get a RFE (despite chest x-ray being normal) for not performing the skin test.
Ironical, isn't it, how and why the IOs suddenly decide to go by the book! FIFIO is also a part of the SOP, but you know the rest... ...!
This is causing many Indians to go for a chest xray. I feel this is a ridiculous requirement.
True, however...
USCIS SOP clearly states that a TB SKin test is required. Last year during the July fiasco, I remember Murthy had an article that said if you ONLY submit a chest x-ray, you will still get a RFE (despite chest x-ray being normal) for not performing the skin test.
Ironical, isn't it, how and why the IOs suddenly decide to go by the book! FIFIO is also a part of the SOP, but you know the rest... ...!
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 01:09 PM
Isnt all that in picture only when you are travelling outside ?
more...
waltz
08-24 02:05 PM
I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but the show is based on the following study:
************************************************
Kauffman Foundation Study Points to �Brain-Drain� of Skilled U.S. Immigrant Entrepreneurs to Home Country
Contacts:
Barbara Pruitt, 816-932-1288, bpruitt@kauffman.org, Kauffman Foundation
Tom Phillips, 212-935-4655, comptwp@aol.com, Communication Partners
More than a million skilled foreign nationals in the United States, including doctors and scientists, face mounting visa backlog
(KANSAS CITY, Mo.) Aug. 22, 2007 � More than one million skilled immigrant workers, including scientists, engineers, doctors and researchers and their families, are competing for 120,000 permanent U.S. resident visas each year, creating a sizeable imbalance likely to fuel a �reverse brain-drain� with skilled workers returning to their home country, according to a new report released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
The situation is even bleaker as the number of employment visas issued to immigrants from any single country is less than 10,000 per year with a wait time of several years.
�The United States benefits from having foreign-born innovators create their ideas in this country,� said Vivek Wadhwa, Wertheim fellow with the Harvard Law School and executive in residence at Duke University. �Their departures would be detrimental to U.S. economic well-being. And, when foreigners come to the United States, collaborate with Americans in developing and patenting new ideas, and employ those ideas in business in ways they could not readily do in their home countries, the world benefits.�
Conducted by researchers at Duke University, New York University and Harvard University, the study is the third in a series of studies focusing on immigrants� contributions to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Earlier research revealed a dramatic increase in the contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property over an eight-year period.
In this study, "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain," researchers offer a more refined measure of this rise in contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property and seek to explain this increase with an analysis of the immigrant-visa backlog for skilled workers. The key finding from this research is that the number of skilled workers waiting for visas is significantly larger than the number that can be admitted to the United States. This imbalance creates the potential for a sizeable reverse brain-drain from the United States to the skilled workers� home countries.
The earlier studies, �America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs� and �Entrepreneurship, Education and Immigration: America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part II,� documented that one in four engineering and technology companies founded between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder. Researchers found that these companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Indian immigrants founded more companies than the next four groups (from the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan and Japan) combined.
Furthermore, these companies� founders tended to be highly educated in science, technology, math and engineering-related disciplines, with 96 percent holding bachelor�s degrees and 75 percent holding master�s or PhD degrees.
Among key findings in the most recent report:
Foreign nationals residing in the United States were named as inventors or co-inventors in 25.6 percent of international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006. This represents an increase from 7.6 percent in 1998.
Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by a number of large, multi-national companies, including Qualcomm (72 percent), Merck & Co. (65 percent), General Electric (64 percent), Siemens (63 percent) and Cisco (60 percent). Forty-one percent of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals as inventors or co-inventors.
In 2006, 16.8 percent of international patent applications from the United States had an inventor or co-inventor with a Chinese-heritage name, representing an increase from 11.2 percent in 1998. The contribution of inventors with Indian-heritage names increased to 13.7 percent from 9.5 percent in the same period.
The total number of employment-based principals in the employment-based categories and their family members waiting for legal permanent residence in the United States in 2006 was estimated at 1,055,084. Additionally, there are an estimated 126,421 residents abroad also waiting for employment-based U.S. legal permanent residence, adding up to a worldwide total of 1,181,505.
Using data from the New Immigrant Survey, the authors find that, in 2003, approximately one in five new legal immigrants in the United States and about one in three employment-based new legal immigrants either planned to leave the United States or were uncertain about remaining. The authors had no data on how many foreign nationals have actually returned to their homelands.
�Given that the U.S. comparative advantage in the global economy is in creating knowledge and applying it to business, it behooves the country to consider how we might adjust policies to reduce the immigration backlog, encourage innovative foreign minds to remain in the country, and entice new innovators to come,� said Robert Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
About the research team
For more information about the Global Engineering and Entrepreneurship research at Duke University, visit http://www.globalizationresearch.com; visit http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/ to learn about Harvard Law�s Labor and Worklife Program; and visit http://www.nyu.edu/ for more information about New York University.
Read the report
************************************************
Kauffman Foundation Study Points to �Brain-Drain� of Skilled U.S. Immigrant Entrepreneurs to Home Country
Contacts:
Barbara Pruitt, 816-932-1288, bpruitt@kauffman.org, Kauffman Foundation
Tom Phillips, 212-935-4655, comptwp@aol.com, Communication Partners
More than a million skilled foreign nationals in the United States, including doctors and scientists, face mounting visa backlog
(KANSAS CITY, Mo.) Aug. 22, 2007 � More than one million skilled immigrant workers, including scientists, engineers, doctors and researchers and their families, are competing for 120,000 permanent U.S. resident visas each year, creating a sizeable imbalance likely to fuel a �reverse brain-drain� with skilled workers returning to their home country, according to a new report released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
The situation is even bleaker as the number of employment visas issued to immigrants from any single country is less than 10,000 per year with a wait time of several years.
�The United States benefits from having foreign-born innovators create their ideas in this country,� said Vivek Wadhwa, Wertheim fellow with the Harvard Law School and executive in residence at Duke University. �Their departures would be detrimental to U.S. economic well-being. And, when foreigners come to the United States, collaborate with Americans in developing and patenting new ideas, and employ those ideas in business in ways they could not readily do in their home countries, the world benefits.�
Conducted by researchers at Duke University, New York University and Harvard University, the study is the third in a series of studies focusing on immigrants� contributions to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Earlier research revealed a dramatic increase in the contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property over an eight-year period.
In this study, "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain," researchers offer a more refined measure of this rise in contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property and seek to explain this increase with an analysis of the immigrant-visa backlog for skilled workers. The key finding from this research is that the number of skilled workers waiting for visas is significantly larger than the number that can be admitted to the United States. This imbalance creates the potential for a sizeable reverse brain-drain from the United States to the skilled workers� home countries.
The earlier studies, �America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs� and �Entrepreneurship, Education and Immigration: America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part II,� documented that one in four engineering and technology companies founded between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder. Researchers found that these companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Indian immigrants founded more companies than the next four groups (from the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan and Japan) combined.
Furthermore, these companies� founders tended to be highly educated in science, technology, math and engineering-related disciplines, with 96 percent holding bachelor�s degrees and 75 percent holding master�s or PhD degrees.
Among key findings in the most recent report:
Foreign nationals residing in the United States were named as inventors or co-inventors in 25.6 percent of international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006. This represents an increase from 7.6 percent in 1998.
Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by a number of large, multi-national companies, including Qualcomm (72 percent), Merck & Co. (65 percent), General Electric (64 percent), Siemens (63 percent) and Cisco (60 percent). Forty-one percent of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals as inventors or co-inventors.
In 2006, 16.8 percent of international patent applications from the United States had an inventor or co-inventor with a Chinese-heritage name, representing an increase from 11.2 percent in 1998. The contribution of inventors with Indian-heritage names increased to 13.7 percent from 9.5 percent in the same period.
The total number of employment-based principals in the employment-based categories and their family members waiting for legal permanent residence in the United States in 2006 was estimated at 1,055,084. Additionally, there are an estimated 126,421 residents abroad also waiting for employment-based U.S. legal permanent residence, adding up to a worldwide total of 1,181,505.
Using data from the New Immigrant Survey, the authors find that, in 2003, approximately one in five new legal immigrants in the United States and about one in three employment-based new legal immigrants either planned to leave the United States or were uncertain about remaining. The authors had no data on how many foreign nationals have actually returned to their homelands.
�Given that the U.S. comparative advantage in the global economy is in creating knowledge and applying it to business, it behooves the country to consider how we might adjust policies to reduce the immigration backlog, encourage innovative foreign minds to remain in the country, and entice new innovators to come,� said Robert Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
About the research team
For more information about the Global Engineering and Entrepreneurship research at Duke University, visit http://www.globalizationresearch.com; visit http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/ to learn about Harvard Law�s Labor and Worklife Program; and visit http://www.nyu.edu/ for more information about New York University.
Read the report
sanjayc
05-27 08:45 PM
Can you please help, if there are some instructions handy. I am having difficulty for following fields
1. Manner of Last Entry : I think it should be PAR:PAROLEE
2. Current Immigration Status : Again think should be PAR:PAROLEE
3. There is a field where it asks for previous EAD's. I am not sure of the date when i applied last time, what date i should put, the date from which EAD is valid ?
4. Also i have applied for EAD twice, do we need to put the information for both of them.
5. Other Names/Aliases : I think it should be 'None' in my case as i never had any other name, am i right or should it be left blank.
6. for Eligibility status i think the value should be : (c)(9) FILED I-485
I am in EB2, pririty date Aug 2006. last entry to US Jan 2010 using Advance Parole.
Thanks and appreciate your help.
1. Manner of Last Entry : I think it should be PAR:PAROLEE
2. Current Immigration Status : Again think should be PAR:PAROLEE
3. There is a field where it asks for previous EAD's. I am not sure of the date when i applied last time, what date i should put, the date from which EAD is valid ?
4. Also i have applied for EAD twice, do we need to put the information for both of them.
5. Other Names/Aliases : I think it should be 'None' in my case as i never had any other name, am i right or should it be left blank.
6. for Eligibility status i think the value should be : (c)(9) FILED I-485
I am in EB2, pririty date Aug 2006. last entry to US Jan 2010 using Advance Parole.
Thanks and appreciate your help.
more...
rajesh1972
02-18 02:31 PM
I have a Green card and also my wife has GC .My wife is expected to deliver a baby.Shw wants the delivery to be in India and then come back...in that case what VISA will the new baby have to apply US when my wife returns back to US.
Appreciate your help in this regard.
Appreciate your help in this regard.
nousername
04-07 01:48 PM
Thanks for a quick explanation.. So basically we are hosed if we leave our employer on a bad note and he decides to use our labor for someone else.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
more...
sameer2730
05-15 08:24 AM
You are faking!!!
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
Thank you sir for finally putting into words what I always suspected. This is shit to attract attention to their site. That was the first place this nonsense came up and just watch how active that thread is . Everywhere else the thread dies quickly.
Other signs these threads are bull. They either give too much info (All tax returns info for the past 10 years) or too little (I got a one line RFE). Secondly look at the id of this guy "Mishras" - How many S Mishra's got this RFE. Where is the effing anonimity. Just a bunch of amateurs trying too hard to make up believe they are authentic.
The other anti's I see here posing as good guys
"GCFORMEORNOT" - Always digging up fear mongering threads to distract from our main goal
"EASTINDIA" - Real first class asshole posing as someone who is a crusader of playing by the rules.
Another reason I feel the above too are rouge is because they change their RED - GREEN status like the markets of 2008. One day they are bright red and the next day they are bright green. Basically they have teamed up each other or maybe other anti's to get the greens just to look authentic.
May those who indulge in this classless activity burn in effing hell.
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
Thank you sir for finally putting into words what I always suspected. This is shit to attract attention to their site. That was the first place this nonsense came up and just watch how active that thread is . Everywhere else the thread dies quickly.
Other signs these threads are bull. They either give too much info (All tax returns info for the past 10 years) or too little (I got a one line RFE). Secondly look at the id of this guy "Mishras" - How many S Mishra's got this RFE. Where is the effing anonimity. Just a bunch of amateurs trying too hard to make up believe they are authentic.
The other anti's I see here posing as good guys
"GCFORMEORNOT" - Always digging up fear mongering threads to distract from our main goal
"EASTINDIA" - Real first class asshole posing as someone who is a crusader of playing by the rules.
Another reason I feel the above too are rouge is because they change their RED - GREEN status like the markets of 2008. One day they are bright red and the next day they are bright green. Basically they have teamed up each other or maybe other anti's to get the greens just to look authentic.
May those who indulge in this classless activity burn in effing hell.
sanju_dba
08-13 01:17 PM
WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law a $600 million border security that will put more agents and equipment along the Mexican border.
...
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_border_security)
isnt this $600M is comming off of the 2k hike on h1 50-50 rule?
if so, any one who wants think of getting rid of h1s they should also think of loosing this border security measure.
...
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_border_security)
isnt this $600M is comming off of the 2k hike on h1 50-50 rule?
if so, any one who wants think of getting rid of h1s they should also think of loosing this border security measure.
more...
bkarnik
09-19 06:26 PM
Recently, I heard the same thing from someone else (was it stucklabor??). It appears that USCIS is being proactive and granting three year approvals once I-140 has been approved. So, there is a chance that this is what happened in your case too.
Either way, since, this appears to work in your favor, I would suggest sending this question for the lawyer call. If it is accepted and answered, it will be posted on the forum so that you and others in similar situation get a definite reply.
Bkarnik.
Either way, since, this appears to work in your favor, I would suggest sending this question for the lawyer call. If it is accepted and answered, it will be posted on the forum so that you and others in similar situation get a definite reply.
Bkarnik.
newtoh1
12-02 04:50 PM
I have a question..
Applying labor before 365 days of H1 expiry is enough
or
Approval of labor before 365 days of H1 expiry is required
for getting extension of 1 year on H1 visa ?
Applying labor before 365 days of H1 expiry is enough
or
Approval of labor before 365 days of H1 expiry is required
for getting extension of 1 year on H1 visa ?
more...
jonty_11
12-03 02:15 PM
I cannot comment specifically to ur case...but when me n my spouse travelled on AP...going to India - no one looked at AP...we just turned in our I94 to the airline....
I think the relevance of AP is only when you re-enter US, hopefully by that time u already have AP in hand for urself and her.
I think the relevance of AP is only when you re-enter US, hopefully by that time u already have AP in hand for urself and her.
Berkeleybee
05-17 01:22 PM
BerkeleyBee,
Thanks for opening a seperate thread for this.
Looking at the proceedings for the last 2 days i feel those opposed to immigration r using the delaying tactic to somwhow push out and kill the bill. It also looks like some form of the bill will come out eventually.
There are enough provisions in the bill which will have a significant effect on retrogression when it becomes a law.
As the bill progresses in the senate and in the conference, they may push out the effective date ( for the bill to become a law) to get the house aboard.
I wonder if we can ask for some non controversial portions of the bill such as capturing unused VISA numbers (they must be 90K) to become law immediatly. This will ease retrogression significantly as there will be no country limits for those numbers.
Can we ask any Senator to bring such an amendment.
(remember those who r here illegally and who need to wait for 8 years to apply for G.C can wait an year more. Need i say about those stuck in the Employment based categories.)
--MC
Mchundi,
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
Thanks for opening a seperate thread for this.
Looking at the proceedings for the last 2 days i feel those opposed to immigration r using the delaying tactic to somwhow push out and kill the bill. It also looks like some form of the bill will come out eventually.
There are enough provisions in the bill which will have a significant effect on retrogression when it becomes a law.
As the bill progresses in the senate and in the conference, they may push out the effective date ( for the bill to become a law) to get the house aboard.
I wonder if we can ask for some non controversial portions of the bill such as capturing unused VISA numbers (they must be 90K) to become law immediatly. This will ease retrogression significantly as there will be no country limits for those numbers.
Can we ask any Senator to bring such an amendment.
(remember those who r here illegally and who need to wait for 8 years to apply for G.C can wait an year more. Need i say about those stuck in the Employment based categories.)
--MC
Mchundi,
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
msp1976
05-19 10:41 AM
I need some advice from the people on this board.
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
the whole employment thing works with the premise that you are going to work for him after you get your GC...However unjust that might be that is how it is...So you got to reconcile with that fact...And you have to cultivate better relations with your employer....You should not speak about him/lawyer about leaving him. If you have already said that you have done damage to your cause and you have to do some damage control.....I know that employers are a pain in you know what but if you want GC you would need to take the pain ....
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
the whole employment thing works with the premise that you are going to work for him after you get your GC...However unjust that might be that is how it is...So you got to reconcile with that fact...And you have to cultivate better relations with your employer....You should not speak about him/lawyer about leaving him. If you have already said that you have done damage to your cause and you have to do some damage control.....I know that employers are a pain in you know what but if you want GC you would need to take the pain ....
newbie123
11-21 02:25 AM
I have similar question as the last one from bhayzone.
+ Myself on H1-B and wife on H4.
+ Both visas are expired now. Have got the new I797s (new expiry in 2011) and planning to go to India in Jan 2010 to get the new visa stamps.
+ But we are planning to apply for my wife's F1 visa instead of renewing her H4.
+ I have my got my I140 approved.
So my question is -
+ Can we schedule our visa interview appointment together - me for H1-B stamping and my wife for F1 stamping?
+ Is it risky to go together?
+ If for some reasons, my wife's F1 application gets rejected, will there be any problem in again applying for her H4 renewal/stamping?
Will appreciate any/all advice.
Regards,
N.
+ Myself on H1-B and wife on H4.
+ Both visas are expired now. Have got the new I797s (new expiry in 2011) and planning to go to India in Jan 2010 to get the new visa stamps.
+ But we are planning to apply for my wife's F1 visa instead of renewing her H4.
+ I have my got my I140 approved.
So my question is -
+ Can we schedule our visa interview appointment together - me for H1-B stamping and my wife for F1 stamping?
+ Is it risky to go together?
+ If for some reasons, my wife's F1 application gets rejected, will there be any problem in again applying for her H4 renewal/stamping?
Will appreciate any/all advice.
Regards,
N.
cyclone_p
06-21 12:24 AM
Hello :
My EAD is valid till August 10, 2010. This is my second EAD. 1st filed with I-485 in 2007 and second renewed in 2008.
First Renewal Attempt :
I therefore sent my papers to my employer in early April 2010 (120 days in advance). My employer to 10 days to file with USCIS (Snail Mail - Phoenix Lockbox). Then USCIS took another 30 days to look at my papers. They rejected it. Reason :
The check amount is incorrect, or has not been provided. Please review the Form Instructions for fee information. Please resubmit the application/petition package with the appropriate fees to the USCIS address listed on the bottom of this notice.
The eligibility code you provide on your I-765 requires proof that an I-485 has been submitted. Please resubmit your Form I-765 with a copy of your Form I-485 receipt notice (I-797).
Turns out my employer did provide checks were provided in the correct amount but the name on the check was incorrect "USCIS Vermont Office"...Go figure.
Further, I had never received my I-485 receipt notice in mail (filed when the flood gates opened in July/August 2007). I had however received my ASC FP notice and had used it in my previous EAD renewal in 2008. I had sent in a copy of this with my paperwork. That did not seem to have worked. So I called USCIS NSC and they informed me that I need to attach a cover letter with my application explaining that I did not receive the I-797 for the I-485.
Second Renewal Attempt :
So this time, I filed my application to the Phoenix Lockbox myself via snail mail (never efiled so thought why take a chance). I sent my own checks payable to "US Department Of Homeland Security" as mentioned in the I-765 instructions. I also included a cover letter about my missing I-485 receipt notice and sent in the I-485 ASC FP notice copy along with a printout of the pending I-485 from USCIS website.
This new app reached USCIS on June 1, 2010.
It got rejected again and reached me yesterday on June 19, 2010. Reasons...Exactly the same as before.
Needless to say, I was confused, frustrated, angry, sad...and everything in between.
Starting Third Attempt :
Given that only 50 days are left for my current EAD to expire. I e-Filed again yesterday (June 20 2010) hoping that by doing so, I will bypass the Phoenix Lockbox and will avoid the reason for rejection regarding the check.
I will be mailing my supporting documents tomorrow. They will reach USCIS on June 22 2010. The only thing/s addtional that I am sending in now are...
a) The top tear-off from the original EAD mailer (had forgotten to send it in last two times as I thought it was not necessary)
b) A request for correction on the eFiled EAD as I mentioned "Country Of Citizenship" as "USA" instead of "India" (Thanks to my frustrated mood and the poor usability of the I-765 online form).
Request advice...
I know that I will have to stop working on August 11 2010 and I can't earn for as long as I don't have a valid EAD in my hand. I also know that it does not affect my Green Card I-485 app as long as I don't work without and EAD.
So what should I do from here on? Should I wait...I still have 50 days to hope to get my renewed EAD in. Should I call USCIS and request expedited processing of my case...but I haven't even received my receipt notices yet. Should I book and INFOPASS appt...but INFOPASS appointments for I-765 are only issued if it has been more than 90 days since the application was filed?
I will really appreciate any comments/suggestion regarding my case.
My EAD is valid till August 10, 2010. This is my second EAD. 1st filed with I-485 in 2007 and second renewed in 2008.
First Renewal Attempt :
I therefore sent my papers to my employer in early April 2010 (120 days in advance). My employer to 10 days to file with USCIS (Snail Mail - Phoenix Lockbox). Then USCIS took another 30 days to look at my papers. They rejected it. Reason :
The check amount is incorrect, or has not been provided. Please review the Form Instructions for fee information. Please resubmit the application/petition package with the appropriate fees to the USCIS address listed on the bottom of this notice.
The eligibility code you provide on your I-765 requires proof that an I-485 has been submitted. Please resubmit your Form I-765 with a copy of your Form I-485 receipt notice (I-797).
Turns out my employer did provide checks were provided in the correct amount but the name on the check was incorrect "USCIS Vermont Office"...Go figure.
Further, I had never received my I-485 receipt notice in mail (filed when the flood gates opened in July/August 2007). I had however received my ASC FP notice and had used it in my previous EAD renewal in 2008. I had sent in a copy of this with my paperwork. That did not seem to have worked. So I called USCIS NSC and they informed me that I need to attach a cover letter with my application explaining that I did not receive the I-797 for the I-485.
Second Renewal Attempt :
So this time, I filed my application to the Phoenix Lockbox myself via snail mail (never efiled so thought why take a chance). I sent my own checks payable to "US Department Of Homeland Security" as mentioned in the I-765 instructions. I also included a cover letter about my missing I-485 receipt notice and sent in the I-485 ASC FP notice copy along with a printout of the pending I-485 from USCIS website.
This new app reached USCIS on June 1, 2010.
It got rejected again and reached me yesterday on June 19, 2010. Reasons...Exactly the same as before.
Needless to say, I was confused, frustrated, angry, sad...and everything in between.
Starting Third Attempt :
Given that only 50 days are left for my current EAD to expire. I e-Filed again yesterday (June 20 2010) hoping that by doing so, I will bypass the Phoenix Lockbox and will avoid the reason for rejection regarding the check.
I will be mailing my supporting documents tomorrow. They will reach USCIS on June 22 2010. The only thing/s addtional that I am sending in now are...
a) The top tear-off from the original EAD mailer (had forgotten to send it in last two times as I thought it was not necessary)
b) A request for correction on the eFiled EAD as I mentioned "Country Of Citizenship" as "USA" instead of "India" (Thanks to my frustrated mood and the poor usability of the I-765 online form).
Request advice...
I know that I will have to stop working on August 11 2010 and I can't earn for as long as I don't have a valid EAD in my hand. I also know that it does not affect my Green Card I-485 app as long as I don't work without and EAD.
So what should I do from here on? Should I wait...I still have 50 days to hope to get my renewed EAD in. Should I call USCIS and request expedited processing of my case...but I haven't even received my receipt notices yet. Should I book and INFOPASS appt...but INFOPASS appointments for I-765 are only issued if it has been more than 90 days since the application was filed?
I will really appreciate any comments/suggestion regarding my case.
No comments:
Post a Comment