girishvar
09-17 07:25 PM
Being a consular processing 6 months is a goog time. If you are already working for your existing employer for more than 6 months, even on H1 then you can take a risk. Basically you need to prove an intent. No body expects anyone needs to be a slave to any employer.
wallpaper World War I. Propaganda
immi2006
05-04 09:48 AM
Yesterday AC 360 interviewed Senator Corny, and others including Laura Bush, all of them mentioned how upset they were to see Mex Flags, Spanish version of national anthem, and more importantly, disrespecting US laws and waving foreign flag.
THey mentioned that it may not before September any decsion on CIR is made, one of them said he is doubtful anything will pass this year at all on Immi reforms. Laura was highly sympatheitc for legal immigrants and their wait in line and she said legal immigrants will be the first preference.
I guess, the Immi Debate is basically divert people attention on IRAQ, Rising GAS Prices, Low Bush Ratings... and Democrats want to churn it to their advantage.
I am not sure if any of you are watching AC 360 at all... it was there last night around 9.30 Pacific time.
THey mentioned that it may not before September any decsion on CIR is made, one of them said he is doubtful anything will pass this year at all on Immi reforms. Laura was highly sympatheitc for legal immigrants and their wait in line and she said legal immigrants will be the first preference.
I guess, the Immi Debate is basically divert people attention on IRAQ, Rising GAS Prices, Low Bush Ratings... and Democrats want to churn it to their advantage.
I am not sure if any of you are watching AC 360 at all... it was there last night around 9.30 Pacific time.
pdakwala
06-26 12:12 PM
The senate just voted on the cloture motion. The motion is agreed to and the bill proceed further. The bill got 64 yes and 35 no. The senate majority leader Reid of Nevada is expected to choose the "clay pigeon" option.
The option will give the expedite passage of this bill from the Senate.
Pratik
The option will give the expedite passage of this bill from the Senate.
Pratik
2011 World War I era poster of a
venky80
06-15 07:43 PM
I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering and I have been working as a system analyst for the last 2 years, does anybody here can advise if I can apply for EB2?
If yes what are the chances that there would be an RFE asking why is masters needed, I do think having done my masters i am able to understand and do the job better, but there is really no specif need for it.
Has anyone else gone through this confusion? What are the things to keep in mind?
Is there a special need how the job requirement should be?
Please advise.
Thanks
If yes what are the chances that there would be an RFE asking why is masters needed, I do think having done my masters i am able to understand and do the job better, but there is really no specif need for it.
Has anyone else gone through this confusion? What are the things to keep in mind?
Is there a special need how the job requirement should be?
Please advise.
Thanks
more...
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
cram
09-21 10:21 PM
I have a pending I-485 application (EB-3) and effective Oct 1, my PD will be current. My application has been pending for more than six months already so I will be covered by AC21. I never worked for my sponsoring employer but will be as soon as I get my GC.
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
more...
pscdk
08-21 10:29 AM
Congratulations.
2010 world war 1 propaganda
IfYouSeekAmy
01-11 03:43 PM
I disagree. DV may not have relevance to you but to a person who does not have an advance degree but still would like to come here to live,work and have a better standard of life it is still VERY relevant. Remember that this country was built by IMMIGRANTS not neccessarily by immigrants with advanced degrees.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
more...
Gray_xx
05-28 10:33 AM
i vote for soul he is the best ugly site maker i ever saw !~!!:)
hair World War I and Others
pasupuleti
07-05 12:37 PM
Could someone with privileges update IV in the news Page?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
sush
10-02 08:21 PM
Service Center: Texas
Type: Regular
Category: EB2
Filing Type: non-concurrent
USCIS Receipt Date: 26 May 2006
RFE: no
I-140 Status: Case received and pending
Approval/Denial Date: N/A
Nationality: India
Tried to upgrade to PP on June 18th but no response from USCIS.
Received a letter after my attorney's enquiry that it is in a background check.
been near 500 days... :confused::mad:
Type: Regular
Category: EB2
Filing Type: non-concurrent
USCIS Receipt Date: 26 May 2006
RFE: no
I-140 Status: Case received and pending
Approval/Denial Date: N/A
Nationality: India
Tried to upgrade to PP on June 18th but no response from USCIS.
Received a letter after my attorney's enquiry that it is in a background check.
been near 500 days... :confused::mad:
hot Propaganda in World War One
letstalklc
10-08 11:17 AM
Yes, there is only one queue, you go ahead and ask them for the status of your application, it's passed 15 month period.
Because of Fragomen audits the DOL audit queue is very big and after announcing dol that they will release the special audited cases to regular queue, but they did nothing as of now.
Because of Fragomen audits the DOL audit queue is very big and after announcing dol that they will release the special audited cases to regular queue, but they did nothing as of now.
more...
house US War Propaganda Poster
Sirisian
12-08 12:20 PM
congratulation to all winner... especially to winner who use the "stargate" background and put the text only...
nice contest.....
I sense a bit of sarcasm? You're "It's Okay" button was a good painting. I'm actually amazed the flower got third place.
Also does this contest remind anyone of pogs? That's what I thought this contest was when I first saw it.
nice contest.....
I sense a bit of sarcasm? You're "It's Okay" button was a good painting. I'm actually amazed the flower got third place.
Also does this contest remind anyone of pogs? That's what I thought this contest was when I first saw it.
tattoo Last Login: One day ago
gemini23
07-17 02:23 PM
Excerpt from Gregs blog and comments :(
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
OK. Now we have this new thread about the "comment" made some anonymous user "south" made on a blog by siskind, and siskind himself is looking at IV for new updates. Man, give us a break. That comment was not made by siskind, but it was made by some user on his blog.
Thanks, but keep moving.
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
OK. Now we have this new thread about the "comment" made some anonymous user "south" made on a blog by siskind, and siskind himself is looking at IV for new updates. Man, give us a break. That comment was not made by siskind, but it was made by some user on his blog.
Thanks, but keep moving.
more...
pictures propaganda world war 1. world
nidar
03-05 11:04 AM
just did
dresses Propaganda from World War II
pamposh
10-05 08:12 AM
Recently a friend of mine hot has GC approved. He is EB2, PD Dec 2005.
Nothing makes sense.
Thanks
Senthil
Are you serious? what country is he from... just curious... i am EB2 sep 2005, sounds like I should not loose my hope...:cool:
Nothing makes sense.
Thanks
Senthil
Are you serious? what country is he from... just curious... i am EB2 sep 2005, sounds like I should not loose my hope...:cool:
more...
makeup World War I Propaganda Poster
raju123
06-26 02:51 PM
Numberusa reported following possible 24 amendments and Cantwell/Kyl amendment is not there. I hope this news is not right.
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
girlfriend Postcard World War One
H1B-GC
02-01 08:30 AM
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
Congrats Buddy!!
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
Congrats Buddy!!
hairstyles a World War II propaganda
satyasrd
01-10 01:13 PM
Does anyone know what the text of this bill spells out ? I hope they are talking about allotting GC's to the people waiting in line and not newly graduated folks.
sury
11-07 10:26 AM
If EB2 PD is 1 APR 2004 then what does the ProcessingTimeFrame Date(August 25, 2006) mean for I-485 in Texas Service Center.
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
cinqsit
10-07 08:32 PM
Yes things are really bad. You are lucky that your company is even willing to consider filing eb2 other companies are not even filling willing to file eb3 perm. They dont want to apply any perm at all. On an average DOL is taking 9 months to approve perm, if it eb2 there is a good chace of getting audited and that will takes a couple of years.
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
Nope! this is just some mis-information floating around - the question in the perm application form was useful when perm came into existence and was specifically for people who had traditional recruitment cases (remember TR) or RIR for that matter rotting in backlog reduction centers and who wanted to "upgrade" to better faster perm labor process and keep the same priority date
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
Nope! this is just some mis-information floating around - the question in the perm application form was useful when perm came into existence and was specifically for people who had traditional recruitment cases (remember TR) or RIR for that matter rotting in backlog reduction centers and who wanted to "upgrade" to better faster perm labor process and keep the same priority date
No comments:
Post a Comment