k94
11-17 09:31 AM
This isn't really answering any questions, but I've asked my company's lawyer to look into the benefits (and/or disadvantages) of making the switch frm TR (non-RIR) to RIR. Since this notice was only made recently by the DOL (in the Federal Register on October 6, 2006), I would imagine that it will take some time for lawyers, etc to figure out all the implications. As soon as I get any information, I will definitely post it.
ita
11-13 10:26 AM
I spoke with A CSR at NSC and she said she could n't confirm if the address has been updated or not since it is private information and she doesn't have access to it.
I asked her about my EAD card.
She took my reciept# ,checked the status and asked me to give the new address and said she sent request for the card to be resent.
Is this how they do it ?
So do I need to talk to IIO to see of my address is updated or not?
Thank you.
I asked her about my EAD card.
She took my reciept# ,checked the status and asked me to give the new address and said she sent request for the card to be resent.
Is this how they do it ?
So do I need to talk to IIO to see of my address is updated or not?
Thank you.
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
![madhuri dixit wallpaper. Madhuri-Dixit-clubwall_11[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2718098420_7e4f4bab5d.jpg "Madhuri-Dixit-clubwall_11[1]")
qplearn
09-10 10:31 AM
Bravo!
That is exactly what we want the house members to know. Our lives are on hold; my wife cannot work, and I cannot move!
Also, a BIG THANK YOU for distancing ourselves from the H1B quota issue that the industry is after. That will get us nowhere in the house that struck it down last time from their bill.
Keep up the good work!
qplearn
That is exactly what we want the house members to know. Our lives are on hold; my wife cannot work, and I cannot move!
Also, a BIG THANK YOU for distancing ourselves from the H1B quota issue that the industry is after. That will get us nowhere in the house that struck it down last time from their bill.
Keep up the good work!
qplearn
more...
stucklabor
07-12 09:24 AM
EADchallenged, please check your PM.
rockstart
06-21 06:28 PM
The business analyst you are mentioning is classified as systems analyst in USCIS code. In this case its prefereable to have computers or electrical degree. A civil engineering degree is little difficult to understand
Other than a MBA or MS, what else could be a better qualification for Analysts / Business Analysts??? Why shld they question the need for Masters? I was of the opinion that for a Business Analyst type profile, MBA would be apt / required to perform the duties.... your thoughts?
Other than a MBA or MS, what else could be a better qualification for Analysts / Business Analysts??? Why shld they question the need for Masters? I was of the opinion that for a Business Analyst type profile, MBA would be apt / required to perform the duties.... your thoughts?
more...
sk2006
05-25 01:21 AM
My Employer is not paying me salary even I am on Project.
can any one please tell me that how to report to DOL about this company.
AGT
Would you please care to update your profile?
It appears you created and ID just to post this question.
can any one please tell me that how to report to DOL about this company.
AGT
Would you please care to update your profile?
It appears you created and ID just to post this question.
shana04
03-08 12:23 PM
My PD of JAN 27 05 became current with the March bulletin. While folks from TSC got GCs from March 2nd itself, NSC seemed to have little action.
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
more...
mandyharper
November 9th, 2004, 06:41 AM
I am new to SLR photography so I do not have any lenses or leanings to any particular manufacturer. My US$1000 has to buy atleast one lense to get me up and running.
I was going to buy the Digital Rebel but I am now considering waiting to see what the Olympus Evolt performs like. I need to have a camera before mid December as I am going on vacation.
Any comments? Is four-thirds here to stay?
:confused:
I was going to buy the Digital Rebel but I am now considering waiting to see what the Olympus Evolt performs like. I need to have a camera before mid December as I am going on vacation.
Any comments? Is four-thirds here to stay?
:confused:
GCBy3000
07-26 04:09 PM
Is this good or bad? We dont have even one single person with negative attitude. At least that is good.
I filed my 485, I am not going to gain anything from IVs efforts now 0 0%
I want to be a free rider and want others to pay for my cause 0 0%
I hate these immigrants and H1B workers on this website and will not contribute 0 0%
I filed my 485, I am not going to gain anything from IVs efforts now 0 0%
I want to be a free rider and want others to pay for my cause 0 0%
I hate these immigrants and H1B workers on this website and will not contribute 0 0%
more...
ganam
02-21 08:57 PM
Yes. It is possible to do H1 Transfer and use AC21 without disrupting the GC process.
Please go to
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nuacp2.html
and see Question 11. Do I have to use an EAD to use AC21?
Please go to
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nuacp2.html
and see Question 11. Do I have to use an EAD to use AC21?
klpd4dc
08-20 01:44 PM
All,
I'm trying to understand if it is a general practice of USCIS to specify an A# on the FP notice. My FP notice has an A# that starts with USCIS A# A08xxxxxxx. I wonder if this means that a visa number has been assigned to my case. If not, is it merely another case or alien number? I found the following at http://www.kkeane.com/general-faq.shtml and am not sure what the A# stands for. Also, any idea why the priority date field is empty on my FP notice?
<QUOTE>
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
</QUOTE>
My PD for EB3 was current in the June 2007 bulletin and I applied for AOS on 06/28.
I'm trying to understand if it is a general practice of USCIS to specify an A# on the FP notice. My FP notice has an A# that starts with USCIS A# A08xxxxxxx. I wonder if this means that a visa number has been assigned to my case. If not, is it merely another case or alien number? I found the following at http://www.kkeane.com/general-faq.shtml and am not sure what the A# stands for. Also, any idea why the priority date field is empty on my FP notice?
<QUOTE>
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
</QUOTE>
My PD for EB3 was current in the June 2007 bulletin and I applied for AOS on 06/28.
more...
Cataphract
05-25 08:53 AM
I just read this article in the paper today and wanted to share it with all of you.
It seems the general media has an impression that this CIR bill is a boon for the legal, skillled immigrant population, now we all know how true that is.
No one it seems has bothered to did deep enough to find out about the true perils of this bill, from the legal immigrants standpoint. That is where we need to also focus our resources.
I truly think that the conservative commentators who write on the op-ed pages of Washington Post, New York Times a and WSJ are our best bets in these tough times. Believe it or not, in the last few days I have read more than a few articles where they have addressed the new bill and have come out in support of legal, skilled immigrants rather than the liberals who are all gung-ho for the the low skilled population and care too much about still preserving family ties and encouraging chain migration. If we were to email something to say, George Will, Charles Krauthammer (I truly despise this right wing nut, but still) or even Robert Novak, there is a good chance they will address this issue.
I think we should develop a stinging rebuke (i know we already have, but this will be a very, very simpler version without all the clause quotations and targeted directly to the laymen), in the form of an Op-Ed piece that addresses in a point-by-point basis some of the most unfavorable provisions that this bill is littered with and also address the misinformation that is being spread suggesting that all of us legal skilled immigrants are going to come out way ahead once this bill passes.
I think we have a very good chance getting it published in one of these papers and it will have a huge impact.
This truly is make or break point for us and thanks everyone for doing their part. I just hope our lobbyists are aware of this predicament and that how damaging it will be to our interests if this bill passes.
Btw, just saw this poll/article on NYT about how most Americans are in favor of the guest worker program and legalizing illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402605.html?hpid=topnews
For some reason my uploads of PDF's failed, so I am adding links.
It seems the general media has an impression that this CIR bill is a boon for the legal, skillled immigrant population, now we all know how true that is.
No one it seems has bothered to did deep enough to find out about the true perils of this bill, from the legal immigrants standpoint. That is where we need to also focus our resources.
I truly think that the conservative commentators who write on the op-ed pages of Washington Post, New York Times a and WSJ are our best bets in these tough times. Believe it or not, in the last few days I have read more than a few articles where they have addressed the new bill and have come out in support of legal, skilled immigrants rather than the liberals who are all gung-ho for the the low skilled population and care too much about still preserving family ties and encouraging chain migration. If we were to email something to say, George Will, Charles Krauthammer (I truly despise this right wing nut, but still) or even Robert Novak, there is a good chance they will address this issue.
I think we should develop a stinging rebuke (i know we already have, but this will be a very, very simpler version without all the clause quotations and targeted directly to the laymen), in the form of an Op-Ed piece that addresses in a point-by-point basis some of the most unfavorable provisions that this bill is littered with and also address the misinformation that is being spread suggesting that all of us legal skilled immigrants are going to come out way ahead once this bill passes.
I think we have a very good chance getting it published in one of these papers and it will have a huge impact.
This truly is make or break point for us and thanks everyone for doing their part. I just hope our lobbyists are aware of this predicament and that how damaging it will be to our interests if this bill passes.
Btw, just saw this poll/article on NYT about how most Americans are in favor of the guest worker program and legalizing illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402605.html?hpid=topnews
For some reason my uploads of PDF's failed, so I am adding links.
waitingmygc
03-08 12:48 PM
Congrats.
Celebrate your day with Wife and Mom. Happy Women day.
Celebrate your day with Wife and Mom. Happy Women day.
more...
boreal
01-05 01:36 PM
Folks
Is anyone has done adjustment of status from B2 to H1.
My friend is in US with 10 yrs multiple entry visa, and he likes to do adjustment of status. Any advice.
Thanks
This is very risky, if not done correctly.
Assume that you would got the I-797 and started working in the US, subsequently, when you go for H1-b stamping in India, high risk of rejection there. This is because B1/B2 has a non-immigrant intention and changing the status to H1-b within the US sends the wrong signal to the Consular officer during stamping.
Correct thing to do would be go to India after getting I-797, get the H1-b stamped, re-enter US on H1 status. Everything would be alright.
Is anyone has done adjustment of status from B2 to H1.
My friend is in US with 10 yrs multiple entry visa, and he likes to do adjustment of status. Any advice.
Thanks
This is very risky, if not done correctly.
Assume that you would got the I-797 and started working in the US, subsequently, when you go for H1-b stamping in India, high risk of rejection there. This is because B1/B2 has a non-immigrant intention and changing the status to H1-b within the US sends the wrong signal to the Consular officer during stamping.
Correct thing to do would be go to India after getting I-797, get the H1-b stamped, re-enter US on H1 status. Everything would be alright.
adGurkha
06-29 12:47 PM
I asked this before but did not get any answer. Trying my luck again. I lost my OPT card and unfortunately have no records what so ever of it.
Is there a way I can get a copy of this from USCIS?
Is there a way I can get a copy of this from USCIS?
more...
terpcurt
January 1st, 2005, 09:54 AM
The alien bees are nice, and you can a good setup and not spend $2,000....... I got 2 bees, stands, wired remotes, hard side travel case, umbrellas and a softbox for less than $1,000.
CaliHoneB
09-21 10:58 AM
There may or maynot be Department of Labor involvement here but I think USCIS needs to help up more than anybody
After 7 + years of wait time I am thinking just sticking to the rules(or not using creating solutions like buying labor, porting etc not that I am judging any one) may not help me get GC in near future. Previously I thought may be it will take some extra years but ultimately I will get my GC but with latest USCIS misallocation of numbers for last year it seems getting my GC is simply a moving target.
I am proposing a solution which could be relatively easy but it does need help from USCIS and should not cause any major backlash (except from a few Eb2 folks). It is relatively easily implementable and I believe it is well inside current laws so nobody need not worry about breaking the law.
The solution is simple
Eb2 = B.S+ 5 years of experience or M.S degree
So the current Eb3 folks who accumulated 5 years experience since filing the LC are asked to apply for consideration of Eb2 category and USCIS has discretion over whether it can be granted (or LC is recertified as Eb2)
I am sure a lot of folks had thought about it and probably mentioned it but what I am proposing is to include USCIS in the discussion on how to achieve this. I am sure anybodywho has a concept of fairness understands Eb3 candidate waiting for 5 years deserves to be in Eb2 just by definition of Eb2 and he is not taking any new job which means he is not displacing any new american worker.
I am sure USCIS also understands that the laws are archiac so may be it is willing to help administratively. I am drawing this conclusion based on how it acted during backlog elimination centers..a lot of people were cleared using RIR in the end days and I am sure USCIS overlooked a few things there because those people deserved those labors and it wasnt their mistake for the massive buildup.
Similarly Eb3 folks are not responsible for all the Visa number wastage which would have alleviated this problem and the responsible party (USCIS) may do something in its power to correct this.
The beauty of this the porting Eb3 applicant will always be behind Eb2 by 5 years and gains 5 years experience to be eligible for Eb2. If Eb3 has enough numbers this is non issue but in case (just like now) Eb3 is falling behind there is an option to port it to Eb2 after 5 years of waiting.
I know it is a wishful thinking but I see this as a most practical solution on the table.
After 7 + years of wait time I am thinking just sticking to the rules(or not using creating solutions like buying labor, porting etc not that I am judging any one) may not help me get GC in near future. Previously I thought may be it will take some extra years but ultimately I will get my GC but with latest USCIS misallocation of numbers for last year it seems getting my GC is simply a moving target.
I am proposing a solution which could be relatively easy but it does need help from USCIS and should not cause any major backlash (except from a few Eb2 folks). It is relatively easily implementable and I believe it is well inside current laws so nobody need not worry about breaking the law.
The solution is simple
Eb2 = B.S+ 5 years of experience or M.S degree
So the current Eb3 folks who accumulated 5 years experience since filing the LC are asked to apply for consideration of Eb2 category and USCIS has discretion over whether it can be granted (or LC is recertified as Eb2)
I am sure a lot of folks had thought about it and probably mentioned it but what I am proposing is to include USCIS in the discussion on how to achieve this. I am sure anybodywho has a concept of fairness understands Eb3 candidate waiting for 5 years deserves to be in Eb2 just by definition of Eb2 and he is not taking any new job which means he is not displacing any new american worker.
I am sure USCIS also understands that the laws are archiac so may be it is willing to help administratively. I am drawing this conclusion based on how it acted during backlog elimination centers..a lot of people were cleared using RIR in the end days and I am sure USCIS overlooked a few things there because those people deserved those labors and it wasnt their mistake for the massive buildup.
Similarly Eb3 folks are not responsible for all the Visa number wastage which would have alleviated this problem and the responsible party (USCIS) may do something in its power to correct this.
The beauty of this the porting Eb3 applicant will always be behind Eb2 by 5 years and gains 5 years experience to be eligible for Eb2. If Eb3 has enough numbers this is non issue but in case (just like now) Eb3 is falling behind there is an option to port it to Eb2 after 5 years of waiting.
I know it is a wishful thinking but I see this as a most practical solution on the table.
GCAmigo
12-13 11:59 AM
I'm in the US working on L1 visa, though I have an expired visa, I have I94 valid until Jun 2008 which makes me legal to work here until Jun 2008. Now, I'm planning to travel to India, Do I need transit visa in France if I travel via france.
What on earth makes you legal to work with an expired Visa?
What on earth makes you legal to work with an expired Visa?
arnet
09-12 02:17 PM
i think, not sure, if you are in US then for renewal in same visa category (or) to transfer from one visa category to another (like F to H visa, etc.), you can goto canada or mexico or india for visa revalidation.
But for new first time H1 visa, i think you should get it from india based on your home state jurisdication. you can check immigrationportal.com regd this there might be threads related to this...
Disclaimer: I'm nt an immigration attroney.
Please check with one on this issue.
Hi Guys,
I am from India. Can I go to US Embassy in Canada for H1 stamping ?
How to do that. Please someone enlighten me.. last time I heared you
have to go back to your country of origin for H1 stamping. am I wrong.
thanks
But for new first time H1 visa, i think you should get it from india based on your home state jurisdication. you can check immigrationportal.com regd this there might be threads related to this...
Disclaimer: I'm nt an immigration attroney.
Please check with one on this issue.
Hi Guys,
I am from India. Can I go to US Embassy in Canada for H1 stamping ?
How to do that. Please someone enlighten me.. last time I heared you
have to go back to your country of origin for H1 stamping. am I wrong.
thanks
canleo98
01-11 02:29 PM
As per my understanding, extension will be given if and only if :
Either Labor is pending for more than 365 days or Labor and I-140 is approved.
If Labor is pending for more than 365 days, one year extension is approved and if Labor and I-140 is approved, three year extension is approved.
Am I right in interpreting the rule correctly?
Hello All,
I am on 7th year of my H1 and my I-140 is pending. Since my current H1 is about to expire, I need to file for my 8th year of H1 extension. Do you think there could be some problem in getting my 8th year extension since my labor is approved and I-140 is pending. The way I interpreted the extension rule is that you can only get the extension if your labor is pending for more than 1 year but in my case my labor is approved and I-140 is pending.And I cannot wait for I-140 approval since my current H1 is about to expire.
Please advise.
Thanks
Either Labor is pending for more than 365 days or Labor and I-140 is approved.
If Labor is pending for more than 365 days, one year extension is approved and if Labor and I-140 is approved, three year extension is approved.
Am I right in interpreting the rule correctly?
Hello All,
I am on 7th year of my H1 and my I-140 is pending. Since my current H1 is about to expire, I need to file for my 8th year of H1 extension. Do you think there could be some problem in getting my 8th year extension since my labor is approved and I-140 is pending. The way I interpreted the extension rule is that you can only get the extension if your labor is pending for more than 1 year but in my case my labor is approved and I-140 is pending.And I cannot wait for I-140 approval since my current H1 is about to expire.
Please advise.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment