ticktoe
09-03 02:02 PM
I am in great need of some suggestions. I hold a MS degree in computer science and graduate in 2004 dec. Since then I have been with the same employer.
Now that he is filing for my LC. Is it difficult to get through with MS+0yrs of expereince ?
Also, at this point of time i have found other employers who is willing to do my GC in which case I will have MS+2 yrs of expereince.
Is it worth changing employer for gaining 2 yrs of expereince for my LC.
Does this really make my case more stronger ? or I am just OVER REACTING ? and doing unneccessary thing
DOES THE EXPEREINCE with MS makes it better for EB2 ?
Please let me know if there are some experts out there
Now that he is filing for my LC. Is it difficult to get through with MS+0yrs of expereince ?
Also, at this point of time i have found other employers who is willing to do my GC in which case I will have MS+2 yrs of expereince.
Is it worth changing employer for gaining 2 yrs of expereince for my LC.
Does this really make my case more stronger ? or I am just OVER REACTING ? and doing unneccessary thing
DOES THE EXPEREINCE with MS makes it better for EB2 ?
Please let me know if there are some experts out there
gcformeornot
04-07 01:48 PM
I hope it doesn't affect Employee (original labor) who have left GC employer using AC-21 with approved I-140 and after 180 days.
This interpretation is game changer for life of many EB immigrants. It should be implemented for going forward but at least should not affect those who used it by the interpretation of that time.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
This interpretation is game changer for life of many EB immigrants. It should be implemented for going forward but at least should not affect those who used it by the interpretation of that time.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
panky72
07-21 10:38 PM
Also with regards to BCG vaccine , the skin test comes positive only within 10 years after BCG is given. If you still have a reaction after 10 years then that means that you have a passive TB and it is recommended that you get it treated. I had a long conversation with an Infectious Disease specialist and he mentioned that there is no urgency to start the treatment because of age factor. So if there is a doctor you know who says that you do not need to be treated even after 10 years of taking the BCG , then probably you should change your doctor for the sake of your own health.
I second that. For more info on the subject please see this link which details the link between BCG and positive skin test in layman language.
http://www.pamf.org/patients/bcg_ppd.html
I second that. For more info on the subject please see this link which details the link between BCG and positive skin test in layman language.
http://www.pamf.org/patients/bcg_ppd.html
GCchakravyuh
07-13 11:43 AM
Dressing up professional makes utmost sense. Afterall they are dealing with 'professional legal immigrants' , not the illegal ones.
So guys , gals... make sure please NO JEANS. if you have summer wear suit fine, otherwise please do wear offical dress code- ofcourse summerwear.
So guys , gals... make sure please NO JEANS. if you have summer wear suit fine, otherwise please do wear offical dress code- ofcourse summerwear.
more...
Ann Ruben
01-24 05:18 PM
Unfortunately, you are now out of status, and you are no longer authorized to work. Your employer can file a new petition for you, but because you are not in legal H1 status, you are not entitled to an extension of H1 status. The same is true if a new employer files an H1 petition for you. In either case, you will have to leave the US, get a new H1 visa stamped in your passport and re-enter the US using that visa in order to regain legal H1 status with authorization to work.
Premium processing isn't required, but if you want to get back to work as soon as possible it would be a good idea.
Ann
Premium processing isn't required, but if you want to get back to work as soon as possible it would be a good idea.
Ann
vinzak
01-20 04:14 PM
I have observed that typically after becoming great, have a tendency to hide his/her EB3 roots. I mean, who'll hire you as a CEO or rocket scientist if they knew you used to be an EB3.
Obama's father was a Kenyan EB3, but Obama insists his father was an EB2. The labor certification that the white house has put out for Barack Obama is clearly a fake.
It's sad but true, America still judges you not by the content of your character but the color of your labor certification.
I propose that EB3s append "EB3" to their name (like Ganesh Teesravarg ME(Comp Sci.), EB3) so that they get more visibility, and ppl realize they live among us, and with some help can actually be productive members of society.
Obama's father was a Kenyan EB3, but Obama insists his father was an EB2. The labor certification that the white house has put out for Barack Obama is clearly a fake.
It's sad but true, America still judges you not by the content of your character but the color of your labor certification.
I propose that EB3s append "EB3" to their name (like Ganesh Teesravarg ME(Comp Sci.), EB3) so that they get more visibility, and ppl realize they live among us, and with some help can actually be productive members of society.
more...
greencard_fever
08-04 04:38 PM
call USCIS and ask them about the problem. If you get a good IO, they will open a ticket to consolidate. Try until, you get someone who sounds knowledgeable. Then take a infopass at your local office after a week to see if that helps any. I did that and took a infopass for this friday to check at local office. My PD is nov 2004. I will keep you posted.
Thank you for the update and can you provide me the details how to take the infoPass.
Thank you for the update and can you provide me the details how to take the infoPass.
Green.Tech
09-16 04:28 PM
Whatever problems you have today :- RFE, NOID, TAXES.. You have 4 weeks to 12 weeks time.
For the most important task today, you have barely a few hours left. So leave everything else for tomorrow and it would not be too late.
If you don't call today it would be too late.
...it would be "years and years" late if we don't call today!
For the most important task today, you have barely a few hours left. So leave everything else for tomorrow and it would not be too late.
If you don't call today it would be too late.
...it would be "years and years" late if we don't call today!
more...
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
gcadream
03-04 08:24 AM
Thanks a lot Rakson for updating the forum with valuable question and answers with the lawyer. Really appreciate it !!
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
more...
jungalee43
06-29 06:44 PM
Sanjay,
Thanks for your reply.
Was your interview an "initial interview"? was the spouse with you?
I am taking all documents, but what specifially they look for? I am confused by what they mean "Originals and copies of all supporting documents submitted with the application"? Does this mean documents submitted with I-485 or labor certificate?
Can you post or PM your esperience?
Thanks for your reply.
Was your interview an "initial interview"? was the spouse with you?
I am taking all documents, but what specifially they look for? I am confused by what they mean "Originals and copies of all supporting documents submitted with the application"? Does this mean documents submitted with I-485 or labor certificate?
Can you post or PM your esperience?
retropain
09-01 11:08 AM
What's particularly interesting is the number of 'scare words' used in this selected testimony on aspects of the CIR bill. Its a lot like Loo Dobbs "War" on the middle class. Its clear CIS, Nusa, FAIR provide the script to him on immigration matters. I knew Loo wasn't that creative in the first place
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
more...
NKR
04-21 03:07 PM
H1b does not exactly make one work "freely" in the US. Certainly not, if the employer is processing your GC as you are pretty much stuck with him.
Only L-1A allows faster GC processing as it does not require Labor and PDs are usually current. L-1B has no such short-cuts and is also plagued by the problem that it is valid only for 5 years. So if you cannot get into a 485 stage within those 5 years, then you are in trouble. On the other hand, a H-1b can be extended indefinitely once you cross a certain point in your GC processing.
So evaluate your options.
If you cannot renew L1, you can go back and work offshore. Remember that GC application is valid even if you are not in country and the process would continue (because GC is for future employment). This option is not bad when the company that sent you on L1 treats you well and you do not want to leave the company. Working at home while your GC is in process appeals to many who want a break from this lengthy and back breaking process.
Only L-1A allows faster GC processing as it does not require Labor and PDs are usually current. L-1B has no such short-cuts and is also plagued by the problem that it is valid only for 5 years. So if you cannot get into a 485 stage within those 5 years, then you are in trouble. On the other hand, a H-1b can be extended indefinitely once you cross a certain point in your GC processing.
So evaluate your options.
If you cannot renew L1, you can go back and work offshore. Remember that GC application is valid even if you are not in country and the process would continue (because GC is for future employment). This option is not bad when the company that sent you on L1 treats you well and you do not want to leave the company. Working at home while your GC is in process appeals to many who want a break from this lengthy and back breaking process.
gcseeker2002
08-14 02:24 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
more...
dan19
01-15 11:48 AM
jonty_11,
the canadian immigration specifically asks for the IELTS. so try to take it. it is not a difficult one.
one of my friends wrote a detailed letter to the immigration dept. showing proof of his english proficiency. i heard it worked and he wasn't asked to take IELTS. (but it all depends on the officer who evaluates the case)
Furthur the letter states: If you fail to provide results of Lang test , an assessment will be done based on information you have provided and that may result is fewer points being awarded for language abilit, influencing overall eligibility.
I am thinking of not taking this test. Anyone else with similar letter from canada Buffalo office?
the canadian immigration specifically asks for the IELTS. so try to take it. it is not a difficult one.
one of my friends wrote a detailed letter to the immigration dept. showing proof of his english proficiency. i heard it worked and he wasn't asked to take IELTS. (but it all depends on the officer who evaluates the case)
Furthur the letter states: If you fail to provide results of Lang test , an assessment will be done based on information you have provided and that may result is fewer points being awarded for language abilit, influencing overall eligibility.
I am thinking of not taking this test. Anyone else with similar letter from canada Buffalo office?
scorpioduo
10-14 03:42 PM
Hi all,
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
more...
Aah_GC
05-30 03:49 PM
Hi gurus, Please advise
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
Krishna - H1B and EAD are your work permits, so do not confuse it with AC21. Eitherway, if you are leaving your employer after 180 days of 485 application receive date - you are using AC21. Good luck.
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
Krishna - H1B and EAD are your work permits, so do not confuse it with AC21. Eitherway, if you are leaving your employer after 180 days of 485 application receive date - you are using AC21. Good luck.
Prashant
05-28 06:26 PM
Hello,
I have recently taken an appoinment at chennai consulate for nov.. I had been looking into these dates for some time .. The website was showing october dates 2 weeks ago and once in a whle sept dates .. but recently they moved on to nov dates .. I guess oct dates might be full .. but could open up now and then as people withdraw and reschedule appoinments .. as of now i guess nov dates are available for appoinment
I have recently taken an appoinment at chennai consulate for nov.. I had been looking into these dates for some time .. The website was showing october dates 2 weeks ago and once in a whle sept dates .. but recently they moved on to nov dates .. I guess oct dates might be full .. but could open up now and then as people withdraw and reschedule appoinments .. as of now i guess nov dates are available for appoinment
CADude
11-08 01:05 PM
NO,
Family based has 1.3 Million pending applications.
AOS has only 655K. So be happy. :D
It appears that this 655K includes family based I485 cases too who are in a different queue.
Family based has 1.3 Million pending applications.
AOS has only 655K. So be happy. :D
It appears that this 655K includes family based I485 cases too who are in a different queue.
wildcat1313
03-26 02:08 AM
Yesterday, I went for my H1b stamping but was issued a 221G. I had all documents that the VO asked for.
1. Client Letter with detailed job descriptions.
2. Vendor Letter with detailed job requirements and skillsets required
3. Contract between my company & Vendor.
4. Work-Order from client to vendor.
5. All W2/pay Slips
6. Company Tax return for last 2 years.
7. Unemployment wage report
8. Notarized copy of all employees with location, salary, start date , end date.
9. Copy of filing with USCIS.
10. All timesheets esablishing employee/employer relationship as well as billing timesheets
VO refused the visa saying he wants to see the contract between employer & end client. Vendor is saying they cannot provide it because of legal issues but are willing to provide a detailed letter stating the same.
I have been with the same employer for last 7 years and never been on bench with I-140 approved. Have worked for same client earlier for 4 years, took a break as I was bored, worked for another client for a year, came back and have been working there for last 2 years now. Client is very co-operative and is willing to help in anyway they can as they need my services.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
1. Client Letter with detailed job descriptions.
2. Vendor Letter with detailed job requirements and skillsets required
3. Contract between my company & Vendor.
4. Work-Order from client to vendor.
5. All W2/pay Slips
6. Company Tax return for last 2 years.
7. Unemployment wage report
8. Notarized copy of all employees with location, salary, start date , end date.
9. Copy of filing with USCIS.
10. All timesheets esablishing employee/employer relationship as well as billing timesheets
VO refused the visa saying he wants to see the contract between employer & end client. Vendor is saying they cannot provide it because of legal issues but are willing to provide a detailed letter stating the same.
I have been with the same employer for last 7 years and never been on bench with I-140 approved. Have worked for same client earlier for 4 years, took a break as I was bored, worked for another client for a year, came back and have been working there for last 2 years now. Client is very co-operative and is willing to help in anyway they can as they need my services.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
ewana
02-02 11:57 PM
Hi all,
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
No comments:
Post a Comment