Humhongekamyab
05-21 12:46 PM
The example he has given is a special case. The guy needs H1, because his son was out of status. Something is missing in the case. The child came to US 10 years back on B2 and stayed on B2 forever without extending or changing the status???
We need H1 only when we are not married or we have not filed I-485 for the dependants.
I agree. This was a special case and the attorney initially filling the 485 should have caught this error.
We need H1 only when we are not married or we have not filed I-485 for the dependants.
I agree. This was a special case and the attorney initially filling the 485 should have caught this error.
wallpaper semana santa 2011 guatemala.
Ramba
04-13 06:13 PM
Hello All,
I came across this site while researching for *urgent* solutions or options that my friend needs to pursue or has.
These are my friend's details --
EB3 -- India.
I140 approved in July 2007.
485 filed in July 2007.
MS in Engg from USA.
MBA in Finance from top ten school in USA.
Has applied for couple of patents in tech field.
Author of few papers in tech field.
My friend worked for his green card petitioning employer for 7 years in a technical position on H1 visa. He had to leave this job under some unfavorable circumstances around a month back. He has now taken a job as Marketing Manager for a big firm and is using his EAD. Two weeks back he has received an RFE on his 485 application. (Very curious and bad timing indeed too). This RFE needs a Employment Verification Letter. The current position that my friend works as does not match the position description on his labor petition. The RFE reply needs to be sent in within next 2 weeks.
What are his options to reply to the RFE? One of the lawyers that was consulted said that since Green Card is for a future position, he needs to get a legit letter from a future employer that the employer is willing to hire my friend after he gets his green card.
Also suggested were EB2-NIW and self-employment options.
What would you suggest -- best course of action? Would you know anybody who has gone through a similar situation. Any fallback options that my friend needs to evaluate?
I really appreciate all your replies. Pl treat this as very urgent.
Thanks.
Please post the occupation classification and the Onet code for the initial job for which GC applied. Also post the job descritipn/duties of the job; if known. Also post the currnt job dutiers and title. I can tro some lights.
I came across this site while researching for *urgent* solutions or options that my friend needs to pursue or has.
These are my friend's details --
EB3 -- India.
I140 approved in July 2007.
485 filed in July 2007.
MS in Engg from USA.
MBA in Finance from top ten school in USA.
Has applied for couple of patents in tech field.
Author of few papers in tech field.
My friend worked for his green card petitioning employer for 7 years in a technical position on H1 visa. He had to leave this job under some unfavorable circumstances around a month back. He has now taken a job as Marketing Manager for a big firm and is using his EAD. Two weeks back he has received an RFE on his 485 application. (Very curious and bad timing indeed too). This RFE needs a Employment Verification Letter. The current position that my friend works as does not match the position description on his labor petition. The RFE reply needs to be sent in within next 2 weeks.
What are his options to reply to the RFE? One of the lawyers that was consulted said that since Green Card is for a future position, he needs to get a legit letter from a future employer that the employer is willing to hire my friend after he gets his green card.
Also suggested were EB2-NIW and self-employment options.
What would you suggest -- best course of action? Would you know anybody who has gone through a similar situation. Any fallback options that my friend needs to evaluate?
I really appreciate all your replies. Pl treat this as very urgent.
Thanks.
Please post the occupation classification and the Onet code for the initial job for which GC applied. Also post the job descritipn/duties of the job; if known. Also post the currnt job dutiers and title. I can tro some lights.
GoneSouth
09-03 03:06 PM
Doesn't matter. MS+0 works just fine. (My EB-2 was MS+0).
2011 These Guatemalan creations
OLDMONK
07-08 08:44 PM
You don't have to. But if your case is straight forward files last 3 w2's. If you did have some out of status time or lower than usual wages in recent years, just file the most recent one + 3 paystubs.
My point is why conceal details if you are ok. Filing before an RFE might preempt RFE.
Being a stright foward case help USCIS decisions a big way, I have personally experienced this at my 140 stage.
My point is why conceal details if you are ok. Filing before an RFE might preempt RFE.
Being a stright foward case help USCIS decisions a big way, I have personally experienced this at my 140 stage.
more...
topgun_gc
07-12 11:05 AM
Vivek,
Can you please share more.? My company also deals with Littler Global, and have not heard such news as of now.
Our lawyer Company has decided to file the AOS application in July
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
Can you please share more.? My company also deals with Littler Global, and have not heard such news as of now.
Our lawyer Company has decided to file the AOS application in July
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
raydhan
02-14 02:17 PM
Thanks for that Iptel.
Will include it in our lawmaker materials list right away and incorporate it into our presentation as soon as I can.
best,
Berkeleybee
Iptel,
Superb find. Great job. Among other things, this report talks accurately about the current Green Card delays and solutions and how LEGAL HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS add to the economy and innovativeness in the U.S.
Selected sections can definitely be used to enlighten the lawmakers.
Keep 'em coming!!!
Will include it in our lawmaker materials list right away and incorporate it into our presentation as soon as I can.
best,
Berkeleybee
Iptel,
Superb find. Great job. Among other things, this report talks accurately about the current Green Card delays and solutions and how LEGAL HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS add to the economy and innovativeness in the U.S.
Selected sections can definitely be used to enlighten the lawmakers.
Keep 'em coming!!!
more...
GC_1000Watt
01-24 09:05 PM
Thank you very much and I sincerely appreaciate advices from all of you. Can some one please claify some other question i have on this topic. Any inputs means a lot to me.
USCIS gave RFE before denying the petition. in RFE they asked for Client letter and I submitted client letter. I don't have denial notice with me and don't know the reason of denial.
1. If my employer is filing new H1 application why i should go with premium processing? why not regular.
2. Am i out of status now?.
3. Can i do H1 transfer now if someone offers fulltime. Should i tell them that my previous H1 application denied if they are willing to transfer.
Thanks in advance.
Your employer can file a new H1B extension petition with the documents covering the problems that caused the first denial. Now the lawyer should attach a letter notifying USCIS about the the first denial and than asking them for adjustment of status.
There is no annual cap. (or may be 300,00) on H1b extension cases. Hence in your case irrespective of your denial, you can file fresh extension one more time & making sure that you are not missing anything and a letter to USCIS mentioning your previous denial case.
I am telling you this on my own experience. And mind you this is not a time for you to be cheap. Please consult with a good lawyer.
USCIS gave RFE before denying the petition. in RFE they asked for Client letter and I submitted client letter. I don't have denial notice with me and don't know the reason of denial.
1. If my employer is filing new H1 application why i should go with premium processing? why not regular.
2. Am i out of status now?.
3. Can i do H1 transfer now if someone offers fulltime. Should i tell them that my previous H1 application denied if they are willing to transfer.
Thanks in advance.
Your employer can file a new H1B extension petition with the documents covering the problems that caused the first denial. Now the lawyer should attach a letter notifying USCIS about the the first denial and than asking them for adjustment of status.
There is no annual cap. (or may be 300,00) on H1b extension cases. Hence in your case irrespective of your denial, you can file fresh extension one more time & making sure that you are not missing anything and a letter to USCIS mentioning your previous denial case.
I am telling you this on my own experience. And mind you this is not a time for you to be cheap. Please consult with a good lawyer.
2010 Here in Guatemala and the rest
agc2005
11-04 09:38 AM
munnashi:
Actually you don't get copy of I140, the employer and lawyer who gets the Approval notices. There is no rule that they have to give you copy.
Actually you don't get copy of I140, the employer and lawyer who gets the Approval notices. There is no rule that they have to give you copy.
more...
heywhat
08-03 06:23 PM
This is kind of fraud. My previous employer was not ready to give me experience letter so one of my friend recommended same but I did not feel comfortable doing that ( not due to fear of USCIS REF ). Just recently I came to know from one of my friend that INS randomly checks with employers and verifies experience letters. So keep your fingure crossed.
To qualify for EB2, you need detail experience letter if you do not have masters. Also I do not think you need experience letter at LC stage, but usually lawyer asks all these upfornt because they can advertise it as per roles and responsibilities performed by you. You still have time to talk to your lawyer and take that letter back. In meantime talk to your ex-employer or manager to issue letter ...
Administrator, please delete this thread .. we do not want to give more scoring points to our opponent..
To qualify for EB2, you need detail experience letter if you do not have masters. Also I do not think you need experience letter at LC stage, but usually lawyer asks all these upfornt because they can advertise it as per roles and responsibilities performed by you. You still have time to talk to your lawyer and take that letter back. In meantime talk to your ex-employer or manager to issue letter ...
Administrator, please delete this thread .. we do not want to give more scoring points to our opponent..
hair semana santa 2011 guatemala.
zoooom
03-17 01:40 PM
As far as I know there is no limitation on the size of the company. As long as they are a stable and sound company you are good to go.
more...
dpp
02-21 01:25 PM
Dec 21, 2006
For those that can see the Feb updates can you please post what date they are showing for:
I-129 ( H1-B Speciality Occupation Extension of stay)
Thanks
For those that can see the Feb updates can you please post what date they are showing for:
I-129 ( H1-B Speciality Occupation Extension of stay)
Thanks
hot semana santa guatemala 2011.
permfiling
01-18 09:08 PM
All the written agreements are valid in most of the states. but you can argue on the terms of agreement. He cannot ask her to stay in the company for 4 years. If she works in that company for 1 year, her employer should recover all the money he spent on her.
The best way is to work there for 1 or 2 years and walk out without paying anything. Or just pay the filing fee and get out right away.
Thanks Chris but if it gets dirty then what kind of lawyers deal with these type of cases
The best way is to work there for 1 or 2 years and walk out without paying anything. Or just pay the filing fee and get out right away.
Thanks Chris but if it gets dirty then what kind of lawyers deal with these type of cases
more...
house la semana santa en guatemala. semana santa en guatemala.
aj1234567
09-27 05:04 PM
Hi Gurus-
One of my friends had received strange letter from the consulate saying that
We are obliged to inform you that petition for temporary employment for xyz InfoTech .has been returned to the department of homeland security(DHS) for reconsideration, in your case you did not meet the necessary criteria of the visa category, we have asked DHS to revoke the petition.
With this letter we are returning your passport. no additional information or documents are required from you.
We will contact you once a final decision has been made on your application
Please advice me why they send this letter and what necessary action we need to take..
Thanks
Aj
One of my friends had received strange letter from the consulate saying that
We are obliged to inform you that petition for temporary employment for xyz InfoTech .has been returned to the department of homeland security(DHS) for reconsideration, in your case you did not meet the necessary criteria of the visa category, we have asked DHS to revoke the petition.
With this letter we are returning your passport. no additional information or documents are required from you.
We will contact you once a final decision has been made on your application
Please advice me why they send this letter and what necessary action we need to take..
Thanks
Aj
tattoo semana santa guatemala 2011.
americandesi
07-05 04:38 PM
If you leave US for 2 or 3 years and get back through a new employer, does your I140 priority date still holds good. A friend of mine got his I140 approved, left to canada and got his citizenship. He intends to move back and want to know if he can still use his priority date. Thanks.
I think you meant, I-485 in the first line. Once I-140 is Approved, its valid forever and you can apply for I-485 anytime as long as the PD holds good.
Since he's a canadian citizen he has 3 options to enter US viz. H1, L1 , TN. I would suggest that he enter US with H1 or L1 rather than TN, as the former has immigrant intent while the later doesn't. Applying for I-485 with TN VISA might result in rejection.
I think you meant, I-485 in the first line. Once I-140 is Approved, its valid forever and you can apply for I-485 anytime as long as the PD holds good.
Since he's a canadian citizen he has 3 options to enter US viz. H1, L1 , TN. I would suggest that he enter US with H1 or L1 rather than TN, as the former has immigrant intent while the later doesn't. Applying for I-485 with TN VISA might result in rejection.
more...
pictures semana santa guatemala 2011.
reno_john
06-11 11:48 AM
I asked IV core on what version of immigration bill they support because I and other people wanted to know since there are so many amendments to the current immigration bill and Now I log in to see , the thread is missing, why, my question was straight forward, again I am asking them on what form of immigration bill they support. I highly doubt In what they are doing looks like they are working for the benefit of them self. Guys please don�t be ignorant and its your right to ask the question don�t be a dumb crowd but ask questions.
I am too in the same GC queue with I140 and I485 filed and pending, so don�t count me as anti � immigrant but also want to see the betterment of others too who are in GC process and will be effected due to the introduction of the new bill.
:mad:
I am too in the same GC queue with I140 and I485 filed and pending, so don�t count me as anti � immigrant but also want to see the betterment of others too who are in GC process and will be effected due to the introduction of the new bill.
:mad:
dresses semana santa en guatemala
royus77
07-12 06:58 PM
fellow legal immigrations - this is my first posting on immigrationvoice.
i have been following this site very closely and first of all let me congratulate the IV team - you are all doing a terrific job!
now, i have read a lot of threads where employees say their employers do not give them the I-140 receipt numbers or the approved I-140s. this is sick! this is worse than bonded labor. employers with good ethics do not play such dirty tricks. this just plain sucks :mad:
clearly, there are rules from the uscis itself that you can port your priority date to another firm as long as your labor + 140 have been approved. so NOBODY has the moral right to withhold your 140 or labor approvals. i keep hearing that "140 belongs to the company" .. good.. but what the heck does that mean ? does that mean there are laws that permit PD porting but in a way you cannot really do that coz certain companies are not willing to give u the approved 140s?... is this FAIR ? or is it time to put this as another ACTION ITEM to make it illegal for companies to withold 140 from their employees especially if they want to switch jobs ??? something to chew on...
peace!
You are trying to fight against Business Lobby ...It wont work
i have been following this site very closely and first of all let me congratulate the IV team - you are all doing a terrific job!
now, i have read a lot of threads where employees say their employers do not give them the I-140 receipt numbers or the approved I-140s. this is sick! this is worse than bonded labor. employers with good ethics do not play such dirty tricks. this just plain sucks :mad:
clearly, there are rules from the uscis itself that you can port your priority date to another firm as long as your labor + 140 have been approved. so NOBODY has the moral right to withhold your 140 or labor approvals. i keep hearing that "140 belongs to the company" .. good.. but what the heck does that mean ? does that mean there are laws that permit PD porting but in a way you cannot really do that coz certain companies are not willing to give u the approved 140s?... is this FAIR ? or is it time to put this as another ACTION ITEM to make it illegal for companies to withold 140 from their employees especially if they want to switch jobs ??? something to chew on...
peace!
You are trying to fight against Business Lobby ...It wont work
more...
makeup Guatemala, Semana Santa
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
girlfriend semana santa guatemala 2011.
ImmiLosers
09-26 08:53 PM
Even if your employer revokes I-140 the PD is locked - Make sure you have a Copy of 140 approval Receipt Notice and a copy of the Labor PD. When you file new GC or 485 application just ask your company's lawyer to slip in the old 140 instead of new 140.
This is a real cool feature but make sure you have to maintain H status all the time - i'm here for 9 yrs and whenever i think about these maverick cool steps i stop at the point of H transfer , extension and fear of getting H denied.
Just to correct you - if you request USCIS to port your old PD during 2nd 140 approval you are good; if you request during I-485 , you got to attach both I140s, which is another recipe for confusion.
In my case I ported but did not get the benefit yet ;
Do it when you have desperate situation? Not sure whether USCIS scrutinize
such applications more than others.
This is a real cool feature but make sure you have to maintain H status all the time - i'm here for 9 yrs and whenever i think about these maverick cool steps i stop at the point of H transfer , extension and fear of getting H denied.
Just to correct you - if you request USCIS to port your old PD during 2nd 140 approval you are good; if you request during I-485 , you got to attach both I140s, which is another recipe for confusion.
In my case I ported but did not get the benefit yet ;
Do it when you have desperate situation? Not sure whether USCIS scrutinize
such applications more than others.
hairstyles semana santa guatemala 2011.
sertasheep
03-16 11:14 AM
The only easy options I see for US educated physicians (of Indian origin) are either the Middle East(where , you can get jobs after min 2+ years of US work experience, not just residency) or back in India.
- Neither Australia or UK recognize US medical education(ironic, isn't it!!!), requiring an arduous recertification process. Not worth it, IMHO.
- Canada claims that the process is simple, but Note that this is not that simple and rosy- jobs aren't that easy to get in Canada.Do a google search for "foreign doctors in Canada". Also, don't go by what migration/immigration agents tell you.
- I have heard of "exchange programs" (you work for a couple of years) in New Zealand or Australia, but you can't settle down there, unless a non-physician spouse is already a permanent resident or citizen
If something has changed in the recent past, or I am wrong, I'd like to hear more.
Here's an email trail from 2003. You can probably talk or contact the organization given below.
>>I hope this can help clarify your situation as concerns your wife's
>>future employment in Canada. If she will be graduating from an
>>accredited medical college in he United States, she will have
>>substantially less difficulty obtaining her license to practice medicine
>>in Canada.
>>
>>She will have to complete the qualifying examinations that are
>>administered by the Medical Council of Canada. There are two of these
>>exams. Information about these exams can be found at http://www.mcc.ca.
>>She should not have to worry about being subjected to the international
>>medical graduate programs since American schools have their degrees
>>recognized by the licensing bodies in Canada.
>>
>>If you would like to speak to me directly please feel free to contact me
>>at the numbers below.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Scott Butler
>>Member Relations/Project Manager
>>Association of International Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (AIPSO)
>>2 Carlton Street, Suite 1004
>>Toronto, ON M5B 1J3
>>
>>Phone: (416) 979-8611 x 4301
>>Fax: (416) 979-9853
>>Email: membershipaipso@cassa.on.ca
>>Web: http://www.aipso.ca
- Neither Australia or UK recognize US medical education(ironic, isn't it!!!), requiring an arduous recertification process. Not worth it, IMHO.
- Canada claims that the process is simple, but Note that this is not that simple and rosy- jobs aren't that easy to get in Canada.Do a google search for "foreign doctors in Canada". Also, don't go by what migration/immigration agents tell you.
- I have heard of "exchange programs" (you work for a couple of years) in New Zealand or Australia, but you can't settle down there, unless a non-physician spouse is already a permanent resident or citizen
If something has changed in the recent past, or I am wrong, I'd like to hear more.
Here's an email trail from 2003. You can probably talk or contact the organization given below.
>>I hope this can help clarify your situation as concerns your wife's
>>future employment in Canada. If she will be graduating from an
>>accredited medical college in he United States, she will have
>>substantially less difficulty obtaining her license to practice medicine
>>in Canada.
>>
>>She will have to complete the qualifying examinations that are
>>administered by the Medical Council of Canada. There are two of these
>>exams. Information about these exams can be found at http://www.mcc.ca.
>>She should not have to worry about being subjected to the international
>>medical graduate programs since American schools have their degrees
>>recognized by the licensing bodies in Canada.
>>
>>If you would like to speak to me directly please feel free to contact me
>>at the numbers below.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Scott Butler
>>Member Relations/Project Manager
>>Association of International Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (AIPSO)
>>2 Carlton Street, Suite 1004
>>Toronto, ON M5B 1J3
>>
>>Phone: (416) 979-8611 x 4301
>>Fax: (416) 979-9853
>>Email: membershipaipso@cassa.on.ca
>>Web: http://www.aipso.ca
immig4me
04-22 01:44 PM
try it and let us know how that works out for you :D:DSo basically you are saying you cannot sue the people responsible for greencard problem.
I think the only option left is to either sue God or sue yourself for your bad luck.
I think the only option left is to either sue God or sue yourself for your bad luck.
tabletpc
11-29 03:07 PM
Hi GCFISH,
Thanks for spedy response...
jsut a quick question..
I will be sending a check in US currency...so should i just find the today's converstion rate and send them the check..???
I just want to amke sure they don't send back my aplciation for wrong fee. later...
Thanks in advance..
Thanks for spedy response...
jsut a quick question..
I will be sending a check in US currency...so should i just find the today's converstion rate and send them the check..???
I just want to amke sure they don't send back my aplciation for wrong fee. later...
Thanks in advance..
No comments:
Post a Comment