delax
07-16 01:51 PM
Whats new about this news? We have been hearing this since Thursday evening.
I hope it does not - but it may also happen that a solution is not reached and our only option then is a lawsuit. Think of it this way - the longer there is no news the more likelyhood there is a deadlock.
I hope it does not - but it may also happen that a solution is not reached and our only option then is a lawsuit. Think of it this way - the longer there is no news the more likelyhood there is a deadlock.
wallpaper free justin bieber meet and
summitpointe
06-13 04:04 PM
Good job.
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
2011 in Justin+ieber+twitter
snhn
04-21 12:10 PM
Hello all,
it used to be that I would look forwared to the dat DOS cam out with their bulletin, hoping that one day i will be current. that day came last month when i became current. Happiness lasted for a few days, only to realize that those dates means nothing unless your processing center is current as well.
I am from Texas, so the dreadfull TSC is the center processing my application. Last date is march 15, and i am assuming they dont follow the same pattern as DOS, that is to say updating their bulletins every month on a specific date. I am also assumin that their date usually move in increments of days rather then monts, like DOS is doing now days. My PD is August 2005. That leave me 4 months or so before anyone starts to work on my case. I have seen a couple of have been called for interveiws with PD around same time as mine. I dont see any changes on my RD message either. It still sayd, we recevied blaha blah... Generic message letting me know they have gotten my case.
What do you all think when the date usually change. Since I am current, my day to look foward is not on DOS websiter, but USCIS website, hoping that they get to processing Auguts dates soon. I am afraid that DOS might retrogress again, and my current PD will beceome thing of the past.
it used to be that I would look forwared to the dat DOS cam out with their bulletin, hoping that one day i will be current. that day came last month when i became current. Happiness lasted for a few days, only to realize that those dates means nothing unless your processing center is current as well.
I am from Texas, so the dreadfull TSC is the center processing my application. Last date is march 15, and i am assuming they dont follow the same pattern as DOS, that is to say updating their bulletins every month on a specific date. I am also assumin that their date usually move in increments of days rather then monts, like DOS is doing now days. My PD is August 2005. That leave me 4 months or so before anyone starts to work on my case. I have seen a couple of have been called for interveiws with PD around same time as mine. I dont see any changes on my RD message either. It still sayd, we recevied blaha blah... Generic message letting me know they have gotten my case.
What do you all think when the date usually change. Since I am current, my day to look foward is not on DOS websiter, but USCIS website, hoping that they get to processing Auguts dates soon. I am afraid that DOS might retrogress again, and my current PD will beceome thing of the past.
more...
nrk
10-26 02:16 PM
Thanks for the information. Green for you
is this what you are asking for?
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
is this what you are asking for?
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
nc14
05-14 09:10 PM
Thanks Guys, It is very reassuring to hear from you.
.................................................. ......................
$100 + $20 recurring
.................................................. ......................
$100 + $20 recurring
more...
Prasad_FL
08-05 12:03 PM
Last year I renewed my passport in Houston thru usps mail. They took 5 weeks for me. Even if you go in person, they would take 2 days for processing. Check with the consulate.
2010 Tags: cool ieber twitter
GCwaitforever
08-15 11:39 AM
08/15/2006: Multiple I-140 Petitions: Uniform Policy in Negative Fashion?
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
This should be a solution to the problem. Submit the approved EB-3 I-140 petition with EB-2 I-140 petition.
"The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition."
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
This should be a solution to the problem. Submit the approved EB-3 I-140 petition with EB-2 I-140 petition.
"The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition."
more...
leo2606
07-29 01:09 PM
Old Pork Chops asked:
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
But he didn't ask if the application is through Baby or Not (he just asked petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby).
So I was just saying My application is filed in EB2 through my employment being parent of a US baby.I tried to be funny but I got red square for my reputation:(
Any way I would like to be out of this thread.
I did not understand your answer.
How come your 4 year old son apply in EB2 category and sponsor the parents. I know the application is for future employment. But this one is stretching too far? :)
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
But he didn't ask if the application is through Baby or Not (he just asked petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby).
So I was just saying My application is filed in EB2 through my employment being parent of a US baby.I tried to be funny but I got red square for my reputation:(
Any way I would like to be out of this thread.
I did not understand your answer.
How come your 4 year old son apply in EB2 category and sponsor the parents. I know the application is for future employment. But this one is stretching too far? :)
hair justin bieber backgrounds
snathan
05-07 12:06 AM
No they did not book any charges against me..How could they that? We did nothing illegal. It is just the whole episode took place ..It has shaken me and my family.
I donot know any lawyer.. Moreover, I am not sure whether it is advisable to go to a lawyer or not... not sure how major the issue is for them..
Moreover, will this affect my Green card process if I start suing these govt. people?
I am just confused...
If you feel you are offended and religiously hurt you can give a try. Some time back MCD was sued for cooking frys in the same oil where they cook chicken. In this country people will only understand law suite.
I donot know any lawyer.. Moreover, I am not sure whether it is advisable to go to a lawyer or not... not sure how major the issue is for them..
Moreover, will this affect my Green card process if I start suing these govt. people?
I am just confused...
If you feel you are offended and religiously hurt you can give a try. Some time back MCD was sued for cooking frys in the same oil where they cook chicken. In this country people will only understand law suite.
more...
haider420
06-13 08:21 AM
I am currently on OPT but it expires in three weeks. I will be forced to go back to F1 status since H1B was real bad this year.
My question is: If I go back to F1 status and then find a research position at a non-profit org/institute of higher education, is it possible for me to file for H1B being on student status??
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP??!!
My question is: If I go back to F1 status and then find a research position at a non-profit org/institute of higher education, is it possible for me to file for H1B being on student status??
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP??!!
hot justin bieber wallpapers
eager_immi
02-11 08:47 AM
They don't listen to anyone they are answerable to why would they listen to people with least amount if rights.
The Judicial system is run by Bush and et al..they wont listen to soemone who they are not answerable to.
The Judicial system is run by Bush and et al..they wont listen to soemone who they are not answerable to.
more...
house justin bieber hate club
Lill
03-03 05:31 AM
so photoshop isnt alowed? Just wondering. if not ill just do it in Flash i guess
tattoo justin bieber posters to print
jeny
08-06 03:41 AM
Jeny: I believe you are referring to an interview for Consular Processing; not Adjustment of Status, correct?
Thanks,
Jayant
Yes Jayant it is Consular Process. Today i send a mail to them, hope they will replay.
Thanks
Thanks,
Jayant
Yes Jayant it is Consular Process. Today i send a mail to them, hope they will replay.
Thanks
more...
pictures free justin bieber posters.
sbmallik
09-03 02:27 PM
Correct! TSC is bend on approving cases with later PDs ... no other logic holds ...
dresses justin bieber phone wallpaper
natrajs
04-21 02:39 PM
I got the Card Production Ordered e-mail today. No LUD even last night at 1 Am. Only one LUD today. My case is processed at Texas service center. And my receipt date is not with in their processing times.
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats and Best Wishes
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats and Best Wishes
more...
makeup twitter backgrounds justin
gccovet
09-04 10:12 AM
Question : If I get H1 transferred to NEWEMP (basically work on H1 and NOT EAD), and CURREMP revokes I-140, will this effect my GC process. I intend to work on H1 and keep on renewing EAD based on i-485 filed. NEWEMP will be providing AC21 letter which will be send to USCIS after I join them.
NO, I-485 filing > 180, also the I-140 is approved.
1. Will there be any effect to my GC process in case CURR Company revokes I-140?
No. if you send AC21 letter, you will not receive NOID (you might get RFE)
2. Can I keep on renewing EAD even though I would work on H1 with NewEMP?
Yes
Here is my thought -
If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
Let say if you start using EAD now, you will have 1 yr 5 months left on your H1B. if there is something wrong with I-485, you can file H1B from different employer (this will not count against quota, as you have unsed 1 yr 5 month left on your H1B), go out of country and come back on H1B (you have more than 1 year left you can start another GC process :))
just my thought, you might want to validate this with any leagal expert.
Thank you Amit for your response.
GCCovet
NO, I-485 filing > 180, also the I-140 is approved.
1. Will there be any effect to my GC process in case CURR Company revokes I-140?
No. if you send AC21 letter, you will not receive NOID (you might get RFE)
2. Can I keep on renewing EAD even though I would work on H1 with NewEMP?
Yes
Here is my thought -
If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
Let say if you start using EAD now, you will have 1 yr 5 months left on your H1B. if there is something wrong with I-485, you can file H1B from different employer (this will not count against quota, as you have unsed 1 yr 5 month left on your H1B), go out of country and come back on H1B (you have more than 1 year left you can start another GC process :))
just my thought, you might want to validate this with any leagal expert.
Thank you Amit for your response.
GCCovet
girlfriend Justin Bieber Free
freakin_gc
02-01 12:25 PM
NSC,I know they are really pain in the ass...my wife recently completed her PHD...we are now seriously thinking about filing another I-140 in EB1 category at TSC. I believe they are much faster than NSC. Again we are not sure whether we can able to file another I-485
If your i-140 reciept mentions 'Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)' Then you are good to go.....dont worry about it was applied as skilled worker.... you should not have any problem in getting the approval again if you company financial status is good..
All the best..
BTW what is your service center, NSC or Texas ?
Thanks
sb
If your i-140 reciept mentions 'Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)' Then you are good to go.....dont worry about it was applied as skilled worker.... you should not have any problem in getting the approval again if you company financial status is good..
All the best..
BTW what is your service center, NSC or Texas ?
Thanks
sb
hairstyles Justin+ieber+free+music+
jayleno
12-02 03:01 PM
Yes. Thats true. If you are not eligible for any other H-1extensions(i.e. labor filed 365 days before etc), you can apply for premium processing for I-140 if your H-1 is about to exprire. However, the extension can only be filed with a copy of the approved I-140. You can also do your H-1 under premuim processing if you are running out of time.
I think its better if you just go ahead and apply and pray everything works according to plan.
FinalGC, Thanks for your reply. I am partially paying for this process. I heard that if the labor is approved and h1b is about to expire, I can apply I-140 under premium processing due to a recent rule change. Is that true? If so, will I be able apply concurrent I-140 and h1B extension?
I think its better if you just go ahead and apply and pray everything works according to plan.
FinalGC, Thanks for your reply. I am partially paying for this process. I heard that if the labor is approved and h1b is about to expire, I can apply I-140 under premium processing due to a recent rule change. Is that true? If so, will I be able apply concurrent I-140 and h1B extension?
smartboy75
07-09 01:59 PM
USCIS has different meening for Re-entry permit and Advance parole. Infact the eligibility criteria is different for both. Look at I-131 Instructions. Its very clearly specified there.
Hope this helps.
1. Re-entry Permit - A reentry permit allows a permanent resident or conditional resident to apply for admission to the United States upon returning from abroad during the permit's validity, without having to obtain a returning resident visa from a U.S. Embassy or consulate
2. Refugee Travel Document - A refugee travel document is issued to a person classified as a refugee or asylee, or to a permanent resident who obtained such status as a result of being a refugee or asylee in the United States. Persons who hold aslyee or refugee status, and are not permanent residents, must have a refugee travel document to return to the United States after temporary travel abroad.
3. Advance Parole Document - An advance parole document is issued solely to authorize the temporary parole of a person into the United States.
The document may be accepted by a transportation company in lieu of a visa as an authorization for the holder to travel to the United States. An advance parole document is not issued to serve in place of any required passport.
Advance parole is an extraordinary measure used sparingly to bring an otherwise inadmissible alien to the United States for a temporary period of time due to a compelling emergency. Advance parole cannot be used to circumvent the normal visa issuing procedures and is not a means to bypass delays in visa issuance.
NOTE: If you are in the United States and wish to travel abroad, you do not need to apply for advance parole if both conditions described below in A and B are met:
B. A Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, was filed on your behalf and is pending with USCIS.
However, upon returning to the United States, you must present your valid H, L, K, or V nonimmigrant visa and continue to remain eligible for that status.
Thanks for clarifying....
I mistook AP to be a re-entry permit....My bad....
Hope this helps.
1. Re-entry Permit - A reentry permit allows a permanent resident or conditional resident to apply for admission to the United States upon returning from abroad during the permit's validity, without having to obtain a returning resident visa from a U.S. Embassy or consulate
2. Refugee Travel Document - A refugee travel document is issued to a person classified as a refugee or asylee, or to a permanent resident who obtained such status as a result of being a refugee or asylee in the United States. Persons who hold aslyee or refugee status, and are not permanent residents, must have a refugee travel document to return to the United States after temporary travel abroad.
3. Advance Parole Document - An advance parole document is issued solely to authorize the temporary parole of a person into the United States.
The document may be accepted by a transportation company in lieu of a visa as an authorization for the holder to travel to the United States. An advance parole document is not issued to serve in place of any required passport.
Advance parole is an extraordinary measure used sparingly to bring an otherwise inadmissible alien to the United States for a temporary period of time due to a compelling emergency. Advance parole cannot be used to circumvent the normal visa issuing procedures and is not a means to bypass delays in visa issuance.
NOTE: If you are in the United States and wish to travel abroad, you do not need to apply for advance parole if both conditions described below in A and B are met:
B. A Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, was filed on your behalf and is pending with USCIS.
However, upon returning to the United States, you must present your valid H, L, K, or V nonimmigrant visa and continue to remain eligible for that status.
Thanks for clarifying....
I mistook AP to be a re-entry permit....My bad....
shreekarthik
06-08 05:57 PM
Guys,
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
in case of spouses having different nationality, we can flip the primary applicant and are not mis-matching the priority dates. So if ur wife is from a non-retro country her PD is still going JAN 2006 but since she is from non-retro she has greater chance of success.
But here u want ur priority date to be applied to your spouse application and that's not legally possible. As the other poster says u can try PERM for EB2 and xfer ur old PD to the new PERM.
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
in case of spouses having different nationality, we can flip the primary applicant and are not mis-matching the priority dates. So if ur wife is from a non-retro country her PD is still going JAN 2006 but since she is from non-retro she has greater chance of success.
But here u want ur priority date to be applied to your spouse application and that's not legally possible. As the other poster says u can try PERM for EB2 and xfer ur old PD to the new PERM.
No comments:
Post a Comment