Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
wallpaper lil wayne quotes about weed.
ItIsNotFunny
05-14 06:00 AM
__________All Other________ China _________ India __________ Mexico _______ Phillipines
EB-1_________ C ____________ C ____________ C ____________ C ____________ C
EB-2_________ C ________ 01 APR 04 _____ 01 APR 04 _________ C ____________ C
EB-3_____ 01 MAR 06 _____ 22 Mar 03 _____ 01 NOV 01 _____ 01 JUL 02 _____ 01 MAR 06
Other_____01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03
Everything else is current.
Link to travel.state.gov bulletin: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4231.html
Woke up too late! :)
EB-1_________ C ____________ C ____________ C ____________ C ____________ C
EB-2_________ C ________ 01 APR 04 _____ 01 APR 04 _________ C ____________ C
EB-3_____ 01 MAR 06 _____ 22 Mar 03 _____ 01 NOV 01 _____ 01 JUL 02 _____ 01 MAR 06
Other_____01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03 _____ 01 JAN 03
Everything else is current.
Link to travel.state.gov bulletin: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4231.html
Woke up too late! :)
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.
2011 Lil Wayne Quotes About Weed
JDM
08-27 12:18 AM
bump^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
shukla77
11-20 08:02 PM
Please send emails to CBS 60 Minutes and other media sources. Send them personalized emails explaining backlog issues and efforts from IV. Considering passage of SKIL Bill in lame duck session a remote possibility, this would be a step in right direction. Also it would bring IV in media focus.
****So far ~10 people have sent emails to CBS..*****
****5990 to go..*****
Good Luck
Shukla77:)
****So far ~10 people have sent emails to CBS..*****
****5990 to go..*****
Good Luck
Shukla77:)
admin
03-15 01:22 PM
this person is bringing some valid points to ponder. People please go through her posting and i agree with her regarding the numbers is still 10% only for india. we need to fight for removing the per country limit, or else, we may probably be in this retrogression mess for quite sometime.
eb3retro,
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
eb3retro,
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
more...
walking_dude
01-30 12:24 PM
Here's a template you can use to E-mail. Put your name and address as newspapers don't normally respond to E-mails sent anonymously. Also customize as required. Please kep the reference to IV Press Release as it's important to get coverage for our issue.
Contact info for MI Newspapers - http://action.aclumich.org/michigannewspapers
Dear Editor,
I'm a regular reader of your newspaper, and would like you to cover the issues faced by legal highly-skilled immigrants due to decision by Michigan Secretary of State Ms. Terri Lynn Land to deny Driving Licences to residents on temporary visa status. This rule impacts thousands of legal immigrant workers in Michigan, like me, by impacting our ability to commute to work. It also affects a large number of International students studying in the state universities.
As a regular reader , I feel disappointed by the lack of media coverage for an issue affecting thousands in the state, including yours. Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) , a non-profit grassroots organization working to fix the issues faced by legal employment-based immigrants has issued a press release on the issue.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb661904.htm
I urge you to cover this issue through a news story. Immigration Voice has been collecting stories from affected members of our community. If your newsreporters need any help in developing the story, Immigration Voice can certainly help you on this issue. Michigan chapter of Immigration Voice can be contacted by E-mailing - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
Sincerely,
xxxx
<<name>>
<<address>>
<<phone>>
Contact info for MI Newspapers - http://action.aclumich.org/michigannewspapers
Dear Editor,
I'm a regular reader of your newspaper, and would like you to cover the issues faced by legal highly-skilled immigrants due to decision by Michigan Secretary of State Ms. Terri Lynn Land to deny Driving Licences to residents on temporary visa status. This rule impacts thousands of legal immigrant workers in Michigan, like me, by impacting our ability to commute to work. It also affects a large number of International students studying in the state universities.
As a regular reader , I feel disappointed by the lack of media coverage for an issue affecting thousands in the state, including yours. Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) , a non-profit grassroots organization working to fix the issues faced by legal employment-based immigrants has issued a press release on the issue.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb661904.htm
I urge you to cover this issue through a news story. Immigration Voice has been collecting stories from affected members of our community. If your newsreporters need any help in developing the story, Immigration Voice can certainly help you on this issue. Michigan chapter of Immigration Voice can be contacted by E-mailing - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
Sincerely,
xxxx
<<name>>
<<address>>
<<phone>>
2010 lil wayne quotes images. lil
mnkaushik
06-04 06:05 PM
Yes BC stands for Birth Certificate. I saw this text in the VFS site for us consulate under Required Documents
For parents visiting a child resident in the US:
If child is an Indian citizen.
a. Childs�s original birth certificate.
b. Photocopy of all pages of child�s passport.
c. Where the US visa of child has expired, photocopy of the renewed petition required.
d. Where child is a legal permanent resident in USA, photocopy of the green card (front and back) is required.
If child is a U.S. citizen.
a. Photocopy of bio-data page of US passport or photocopy of Naturalization Certificate.
So is this requirement only when ur sponsoring ur parents?
For parents visiting a child resident in the US:
If child is an Indian citizen.
a. Childs�s original birth certificate.
b. Photocopy of all pages of child�s passport.
c. Where the US visa of child has expired, photocopy of the renewed petition required.
d. Where child is a legal permanent resident in USA, photocopy of the green card (front and back) is required.
If child is a U.S. citizen.
a. Photocopy of bio-data page of US passport or photocopy of Naturalization Certificate.
So is this requirement only when ur sponsoring ur parents?
more...
BPforGC
03-05 11:52 PM
My wife got RFE before leaving for India. Unless you know what the RFE is about, do not leave the country under any circumstances. RFE dates cannot be extended without compelling reasons. If you do not answer RFE, your petition has the chance of being considered "abandoned". Call the service center, not customer service, and find out about the content of RFE and tell them that you updated the address but you still did not get it.
They have access to read what is in the RFE. For my wife, the IO at NSC read the RFE content and told that it is about birth certificate. So, call and find out what is in there and take care of it first. Under any circumstances do not leave the country without answering the RFE otherwise you may not be able to come back, because it may lead to your petition considered abandoned. This risk is greatest if you use AP.
If your wife is traveling on H4, then she can enter using that VISA as long as if you maintain valid H1B. But if you are on EAD and she is traveling on AP, do not take risk. Do not listen to multiple people because you get half-cooked answers. I went through that situation and I am telling you, get to the bottom of the RFE, fast.
They have access to read what is in the RFE. For my wife, the IO at NSC read the RFE content and told that it is about birth certificate. So, call and find out what is in there and take care of it first. Under any circumstances do not leave the country without answering the RFE otherwise you may not be able to come back, because it may lead to your petition considered abandoned. This risk is greatest if you use AP.
If your wife is traveling on H4, then she can enter using that VISA as long as if you maintain valid H1B. But if you are on EAD and she is traveling on AP, do not take risk. Do not listen to multiple people because you get half-cooked answers. I went through that situation and I am telling you, get to the bottom of the RFE, fast.
hair lil wayne quotes about weed
va2000
10-10 09:30 AM
My lawyer told me that using EAD will not effected H4 status . It is good to get extensions on H4 along with H1 even you use your EAD to be safer side if some thing wrong with 485
more...
rolrblade
03-18 08:14 AM
Hi,
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
Answers below:
1. Technically there is no Salary restriction. As stated above it is a grey area. But, if the job duties are the same and the salary difference is too big (no one knows how much is acceptable without raising questions), then it brings into question if you are still performing the same duties. But basically, you have to make equal to or more than the LC.
2. I have used AC21 before. Have not done EAD renewal yet.
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
Answers below:
1. Technically there is no Salary restriction. As stated above it is a grey area. But, if the job duties are the same and the salary difference is too big (no one knows how much is acceptable without raising questions), then it brings into question if you are still performing the same duties. But basically, you have to make equal to or more than the LC.
2. I have used AC21 before. Have not done EAD renewal yet.
hot LIL WAYNE QUOTES ABOUT WEED
browncow
06-08 10:53 PM
I do not support this.
one, We simply do not want a temporary fix to our big genuine bureaucratic issue. and two, we are not alone, there are others who are filing/have filed labor/i140s and are waiting to file 485s.
also, it will mellow down our resolve to overcome this injustice.
money is really not the issue, as if they issue a 10 year EAD, they are definitely gonna make it that much more expensive, and USCIS cannot delay EAD APs, as that would make our case even stronger.
one, We simply do not want a temporary fix to our big genuine bureaucratic issue. and two, we are not alone, there are others who are filing/have filed labor/i140s and are waiting to file 485s.
also, it will mellow down our resolve to overcome this injustice.
money is really not the issue, as if they issue a 10 year EAD, they are definitely gonna make it that much more expensive, and USCIS cannot delay EAD APs, as that would make our case even stronger.
more...
house lil wayne weed quotes. lil
Appu
04-17 04:35 PM
Not sure if this is for us legal immigrants or against us. It says "hardworking americans". We are not americans yet. It could well mean that join the fight AGAINST H1Bs..
The illegals aren't Americans either and the email from Kennedy's staff basically talks about how well-received his Apr 10th speech in DC was and how the senator intends to fight to push immigration reform through the congress.
A lot of people signing up will give the staff the right impetus.
The illegals aren't Americans either and the email from Kennedy's staff basically talks about how well-received his Apr 10th speech in DC was and how the senator intends to fight to push immigration reform through the congress.
A lot of people signing up will give the staff the right impetus.
tattoo LIL WAYNE SMOKING WEED QUOTES
Aah_GC
06-19 07:51 PM
If I were you, I would look for opportunities that fall in line with your GC labor. System Analyst and Project Manager don't really go well together, leave alone the SOC codes. Your PD also seems to be quite close (relatively speaking).
If anything try to negotiate your external title with your prospective employer.
Good luck, can understand your frustration.
If anything try to negotiate your external title with your prospective employer.
Good luck, can understand your frustration.
more...
pictures lil wayne weed quotes.
CCC
07-05 06:33 PM
First off, thanks for the response guys.
So how do i get the copy of the I-140 from the company. Is it my legal right to get this or do i have to beg :) ? Also, company B is a startup and they are willing to file a new Perm application. Is there a big risk of Perm applications being reject from these type of small startup companies?
So how do i get the copy of the I-140 from the company. Is it my legal right to get this or do i have to beg :) ? Also, company B is a startup and they are willing to file a new Perm application. Is there a big risk of Perm applications being reject from these type of small startup companies?
dresses dresses funny smoking weed
jonty_11
01-22 12:52 PM
I am also in similar situation.
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
what does your lawyer say????
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
what does your lawyer say????
more...
makeup lil wayne quotes about weed
coolest_me
07-13 03:40 PM
Hi,
I m in the process of renewing AP for my family and have this question. When you renew for the family do you send all the application in one FedEx Envelope or one envelope for each application ?
Also, in case of E-Filing do you add all the applications under one login ?
Thanks in advance.
I m in the process of renewing AP for my family and have this question. When you renew for the family do you send all the application in one FedEx Envelope or one envelope for each application ?
Also, in case of E-Filing do you add all the applications under one login ?
Thanks in advance.
girlfriend lil wayne quotes images. lil
Karthikthiru
06-11 01:45 PM
If Bush says anything this concrete - THEN HE WILL. Lot of times it looked very stupid when he said like this but finally it gets done. We should prepare to see what ammendments we can include
Karthik
Karthik
hairstyles of lil wayne,weed quotes
Juan28210
11-03 03:59 PM
Hi,
I'm on H1b visa. My employer refuses to pay for my medical insurance. Does anyone know if this is legal?
Thanks.
I'm on H1b visa. My employer refuses to pay for my medical insurance. Does anyone know if this is legal?
Thanks.
mps
04-21 02:25 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.
Congratulations on getting your GC !!!
I need to ask you a question as I don't see on LUD after FP in 485. However LUD changed on my approved I-140.
Was there any LUD on I-140 case after your FP?
Regards
Good luck to everyone.
Congratulations on getting your GC !!!
I need to ask you a question as I don't see on LUD after FP in 485. However LUD changed on my approved I-140.
Was there any LUD on I-140 case after your FP?
Regards
munnu77
04-06 10:56 PM
If you go toImmigration-law update time clearly says 3PM EST and IV postings are around 9.30PM EST ...so what have to be correct? the one which is posted at 3PM or 9.30 PM. You decide. Before asking same question in different place do some homework.
i agree immiration-law has not updated...
see cnn at 11 30 pm ET...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/immigration.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12184299/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190770,00.html
they update every half hr
i agree immiration-law has not updated...
see cnn at 11 30 pm ET...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/immigration.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12184299/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190770,00.html
they update every half hr
No comments:
Post a Comment