gc4me
07-05 08:45 PM
I have sent a request 5 months back to FOIA to get my I-140 copy. No luck yet.
I'm not sure if you can do a PD transfer just based on receipt #. You may try the FOIA route - but please be aware that it will take about a year plus to get a copy of your 140. Now depending on your PD, you can take a guess and go ahead - either do FOIA and get a copy OR just wait until PD is current for you again.
I'm not sure if you can do a PD transfer just based on receipt #. You may try the FOIA route - but please be aware that it will take about a year plus to get a copy of your 140. Now depending on your PD, you can take a guess and go ahead - either do FOIA and get a copy OR just wait until PD is current for you again.
wallpaper quotes people change,
reddymjm
03-01 01:28 PM
Hello All,
I was wondering if someone could please explain what the processing dates mean.... For Texas 485 processing date is April 2007. Does this mean they are adjucating 485 applications received in April 2007? I am confused- does this mean that anyone who applied for AOS after april 2007 will not get their GC even if their PD is current? I am just trying to understand the process. Thanks in advance!
With no sense.
I was wondering if someone could please explain what the processing dates mean.... For Texas 485 processing date is April 2007. Does this mean they are adjucating 485 applications received in April 2007? I am confused- does this mean that anyone who applied for AOS after april 2007 will not get their GC even if their PD is current? I am just trying to understand the process. Thanks in advance!
With no sense.
GCAmigo
12-04 09:16 AM
you should in fact thank the system for letting you to continue on H1 ..
2011 people can change the; quotes
sekasi
11-30 02:16 AM
I think I misread the OP about moving from the flash IDE to flex builder although I strongly prefer both FD and FDT to flex builder..
and no Jeff, it wasn't directed at you although I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about either :P
and no Jeff, it wasn't directed at you although I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about either :P
more...
kumarc123
08-13 02:09 PM
after rolling out the sept visa ... rao saab aaram kar rahe hain...
kindly not "DISTUB"
:D:D:D
(translation : __mr rao is resting__)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
kindly not "DISTUB"
:D:D:D
(translation : __mr rao is resting__)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
obviously
08-04 11:45 AM
Thanks for the 2 quick responses... albeit, opposite in recommendation :)
1. No need to file new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Any risks that we should think about?
2. File new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Apart from the additional cost and document preparation time, is there any other downside?
Funny thing is before this happened, I ran into a lot of threads suggesting interfiling was easy. Now that it is at the doorstep, there are quite a few questions and some confusion. I am thinking of getting a 20 min appt with the M law firm.
Appreciate any responses or assistance!!!!
Cheers!
I found the following info from Ron G's website, not sure that most of it applies in this case... since both I-140 have been approved and the later one under EB2 does reference the EB3 priority date.
When an I-140 is approved, your priority date is perfected. If the labor substitution I-140 has been approved, then you own that priority date forever. If you have to file the new I-140 before the old one is approved, you can later show the CIS the two priority dates (from the petition approval notices) and pick the better preference category and earlier priority date - even though they may be from different petitions. In this case, "later" means after the I-140 with the earlier priority date is approved. All you need to do is write to the CIS and enclose copies of the relevant approval notices and the I-485 receipt notice. What you should do is make sure that they consolidate both I-140 petitions into the same file. You don't need to file a new I-485, all you need to do in interfile your second I-140.
You should make a copy of the approval notice for the first I-140, a copy of the receipt notice for the second I-140, and the write a letter to the CIS, asking them to give your second I-140 the priority date established by the first. You can cite the regulatory authority found HERE. (Refer text below) Send it to the correspondence address shown in the lower left portion of the receipt notice.
You can upgrade your preference classification while staying with the same employer, but you will need a new job. Attempting to use the same job with different minimum qualifications will call into question the legitimacy of the original labor certification. If the second I-140 is denied, it will have no effect on the first. There shouldn't be any difficulty porting in an LC substitution situation.
The CIS regulations at 8 CFR 204.5(e) provides for the retention of a previously established priority date under the circumstances described below:
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. --
A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
1. No need to file new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Any risks that we should think about?
2. File new I-485
- Has anyone done this?
- Apart from the additional cost and document preparation time, is there any other downside?
Funny thing is before this happened, I ran into a lot of threads suggesting interfiling was easy. Now that it is at the doorstep, there are quite a few questions and some confusion. I am thinking of getting a 20 min appt with the M law firm.
Appreciate any responses or assistance!!!!
Cheers!
I found the following info from Ron G's website, not sure that most of it applies in this case... since both I-140 have been approved and the later one under EB2 does reference the EB3 priority date.
When an I-140 is approved, your priority date is perfected. If the labor substitution I-140 has been approved, then you own that priority date forever. If you have to file the new I-140 before the old one is approved, you can later show the CIS the two priority dates (from the petition approval notices) and pick the better preference category and earlier priority date - even though they may be from different petitions. In this case, "later" means after the I-140 with the earlier priority date is approved. All you need to do is write to the CIS and enclose copies of the relevant approval notices and the I-485 receipt notice. What you should do is make sure that they consolidate both I-140 petitions into the same file. You don't need to file a new I-485, all you need to do in interfile your second I-140.
You should make a copy of the approval notice for the first I-140, a copy of the receipt notice for the second I-140, and the write a letter to the CIS, asking them to give your second I-140 the priority date established by the first. You can cite the regulatory authority found HERE. (Refer text below) Send it to the correspondence address shown in the lower left portion of the receipt notice.
You can upgrade your preference classification while staying with the same employer, but you will need a new job. Attempting to use the same job with different minimum qualifications will call into question the legitimacy of the original labor certification. If the second I-140 is denied, it will have no effect on the first. There shouldn't be any difficulty porting in an LC substitution situation.
The CIS regulations at 8 CFR 204.5(e) provides for the retention of a previously established priority date under the circumstances described below:
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. --
A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
more...
rolrblade
07-20 01:26 PM
I sent in form G-325 for both me and my wife along with my I-485 instead of the G-325A as required on I-485 instructions by oversight. What do you guys recommend I do? Should I send in a new application or just send in the G-325A form with a letter stating the issue? Please help.
When did you file? How long has it been?
if you just recently filed, I would recommend that you wait for the Receipt notice of the 485 (at this stage they have not worked on your case yet) and then send the letter along with the correct form.
Atleast that way they can track it and put it where it is supposed to go. Right now, if you send it where are they going to find your form in 700K+ applications comming n and and you not even being in the system.
Consult with your attorney thugh.
Just my 2 cents.
When did you file? How long has it been?
if you just recently filed, I would recommend that you wait for the Receipt notice of the 485 (at this stage they have not worked on your case yet) and then send the letter along with the correct form.
Atleast that way they can track it and put it where it is supposed to go. Right now, if you send it where are they going to find your form in 700K+ applications comming n and and you not even being in the system.
Consult with your attorney thugh.
Just my 2 cents.
2010 quotes about people who change
CCC
07-05 02:19 PM
Hello,
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
more...
BharatPremi
07-12 04:34 PM
I believe the only reason EB visa numbers have gone unused in recent years is due to the the inability of FBI in completing namecheck/background check in a timely FIFO fashion. As a result USCIS is unable to approve pending I485s even when the visa numbers are available. This also keeps the VISA BULLETIN doors closed for new I485s.
This (besides labor backlog) spoils the FIFO for GCs.
Fixing FBI security check process will end such visa bulletin fiasco. I believe in recent year or two USCIS has processed various applications (including I485) in a very timely fashion (ofcourse there are exceptions). But many I485s get stuck in the security check bottleneck. Since, visa number is assigned at the approval time the whole FIFO goes to hell.
DOS should be issuing VISA BULLETIN based on pending approvable I485 (meaning security check complete) and fiscal year visa availability. If former is smaller than latter then bulletin dates should move forward based on approved I140s which have not applied for AOS. This is not rocket science but simple math which is lost on DOS, USCIS & FBI.
However, fixing FBI security checks (timely completion) will restore FIFO once labor backlog is gone.
FBI delays is the prime reason for this fiasco.
BTW my AOS is pending due to indefinite background check delay.
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
This (besides labor backlog) spoils the FIFO for GCs.
Fixing FBI security check process will end such visa bulletin fiasco. I believe in recent year or two USCIS has processed various applications (including I485) in a very timely fashion (ofcourse there are exceptions). But many I485s get stuck in the security check bottleneck. Since, visa number is assigned at the approval time the whole FIFO goes to hell.
DOS should be issuing VISA BULLETIN based on pending approvable I485 (meaning security check complete) and fiscal year visa availability. If former is smaller than latter then bulletin dates should move forward based on approved I140s which have not applied for AOS. This is not rocket science but simple math which is lost on DOS, USCIS & FBI.
However, fixing FBI security checks (timely completion) will restore FIFO once labor backlog is gone.
FBI delays is the prime reason for this fiasco.
BTW my AOS is pending due to indefinite background check delay.
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
hair quotes about people. quotes
H1B-GC
07-15 02:14 PM
All,
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
Congrats Bud! Can you Tell us when did you apply for the consular Process and ur I-485 date ???
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
Congrats Bud! Can you Tell us when did you apply for the consular Process and ur I-485 date ???
more...
waitingnwaiting
02-11 11:42 AM
What are IVs recommendations ??
It is a Donor only information.
It is a Donor only information.
hot quotes about people who
MahaBharatGC
10-13 10:57 AM
:confused:
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
more...
house Read great quotes from people
gcadream
03-01 10:02 AM
Another front to think about :
Recently I have heard that when the company publishes advertisement for the labor when filling for fresh PERM, every time there is a response coming back because of the higher rate of unemployment in the market. The issue is, if any response comes back then the company cannot proceed with the labor and new GC process gets hung.
So, to be on safer side just check on ur skill set before resigning the current job as it should not be readily available in the market.
Recently I have heard that when the company publishes advertisement for the labor when filling for fresh PERM, every time there is a response coming back because of the higher rate of unemployment in the market. The issue is, if any response comes back then the company cannot proceed with the labor and new GC process gets hung.
So, to be on safer side just check on ur skill set before resigning the current job as it should not be readily available in the market.
tattoo quotes about people who
eb3retro
02-24 03:49 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
more...
pictures people change…
leoindiano
08-03 05:44 PM
The USCIS has indicated that it plans to reconcile the second A number for each I-485 applicant with the previously-issued A number.
That is the key. Reconciled cases will have no problems.
That is the key. Reconciled cases will have no problems.
dresses quotes about people who change
123456mg
07-29 04:16 AM
Hi there,
IV seems to be a terrific service to the immigration community. Kudos to the people who work hard to make it work.
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
Hmmm..... good idea! Looks like you have a baby......
I do not think in any country there are such laws in place. Why don't you write it to US congress and see if it gets passed!! You will find yourself at the end of few million illegal latinos.
Good luck buddy!!
IV seems to be a terrific service to the immigration community. Kudos to the people who work hard to make it work.
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
Hmmm..... good idea! Looks like you have a baby......
I do not think in any country there are such laws in place. Why don't you write it to US congress and see if it gets passed!! You will find yourself at the end of few million illegal latinos.
Good luck buddy!!
more...
makeup People Change Quotes Yahoo
vin13
01-09 06:58 PM
None of my friends have lost their jobs. I was recently in India, and everyone i talked to was asking how bad was the job scene in US. I think India and Indians are affected more because of IT consulting jobs.
girlfriend Change Quotes, Pictures
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
hairstyles quotes about people who change
hopelessGC
04-20 10:34 AM
Hi Guys,
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
This one is playing a joke...but if it is indeed true then it is a MIRACLE :confused:
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
This one is playing a joke...but if it is indeed true then it is a MIRACLE :confused:
ngopikrishnan
07-12 09:47 PM
AP and EAD Renewal Paper filed at TSC - Self Filed
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD app for myself is still pending - LUD is still 6/11. I hope TSC approves the EAD as well soon.
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD app for myself is still pending - LUD is still 6/11. I hope TSC approves the EAD as well soon.
pitha
02-27 04:47 PM
It is worse than your estimates below because when green card is issued spouse and children are also counted in the quota unlike the h1 where spouse and children are not counted in the quota. Even if we assume each green card applicat has only one child, there would be 3 visa numbers used for each GC applicant. Going by that India has a demand for 150K GC as per the perm statistics but it gets only about 10000 per year. At this rate people from India who applied for GC in 06 and 07 would have to wait about 15 years and 30 years respectively to get the GC!!!!!!!!
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
No comments:
Post a Comment