krishmunn
05-05 07:52 PM
Soltan
I am assuming you never filed your 485 with old company .
In that case, you will now need to start your PERM agains with the new company. After PERM apply a new 140 and during this application you can request for the PD as per your old 140.
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
I am assuming you never filed your 485 with old company .
In that case, you will now need to start your PERM agains with the new company. After PERM apply a new 140 and during this application you can request for the PD as per your old 140.
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
aadimanav
09-05 03:56 PM
Congratulation to all EB2 who are getting their approvals. Have a wonderful post-GC life :)
When will, we EB3s (India), see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Looks like (in my case) after waiting for more than 5 years it will still take 3-4 years. I am mad :mad:
When will, we EB3s (India), see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Looks like (in my case) after waiting for more than 5 years it will still take 3-4 years. I am mad :mad:
dixie
08-21 09:58 PM
The situation is unfair only if there is no retrogression. In that case there is a high probability that the one who applied in 2005 gets his GC (or at least EAD/AP), while a 2001 applicant's LC is still caught in the BEC.
But given that retrogression is very much in place for all but EB-1 and EB-2 ROW, an approved I-140 is pretty much useless except for getting 3 year extensions (and limited portability) . In that case, even if the 2005 applicant gets his I-140 approval in a jiffy, he has to wait behind the BEC victim when it comes to applying for 485 (assuming of course that BECs dont last forever).So retrogression neutralises the unfairness of BECs to a large extent.
I do agree however, that the BECs should have been cleared prior to starting the PERM system.
All the fresh H1's wait little longer, while older h1 case gets adjucated. Presently, a guy who filed in 1999, 2000, 2001 is clue less, on what is happening, a guy who filed in 2005/6 had a 140 already, is this fair ?
So to make it more evenly distributed, delay the process by 2/3 years for every new h1 applicant, and also insisting on 2 years of tax filing , will ensure, the older applications gets processed in the meanwhile, and also help the newer applications get streamlined.
Hope u got the point...
But given that retrogression is very much in place for all but EB-1 and EB-2 ROW, an approved I-140 is pretty much useless except for getting 3 year extensions (and limited portability) . In that case, even if the 2005 applicant gets his I-140 approval in a jiffy, he has to wait behind the BEC victim when it comes to applying for 485 (assuming of course that BECs dont last forever).So retrogression neutralises the unfairness of BECs to a large extent.
I do agree however, that the BECs should have been cleared prior to starting the PERM system.
All the fresh H1's wait little longer, while older h1 case gets adjucated. Presently, a guy who filed in 1999, 2000, 2001 is clue less, on what is happening, a guy who filed in 2005/6 had a 140 already, is this fair ?
So to make it more evenly distributed, delay the process by 2/3 years for every new h1 applicant, and also insisting on 2 years of tax filing , will ensure, the older applications gets processed in the meanwhile, and also help the newer applications get streamlined.
Hope u got the point...
coopheal
04-12 07:17 PM
If you have an attorney represnted and you ahve signed a G325, you will not get the RFE your lawyer rather would get it...
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
more...
greenguru
03-31 06:37 PM
Here is the process for porting
1. Apply for EB2
2. Apply for I-140 under EB-2. Attached your old EB3 I-140 and request for a porting.
3. If you applied for 485 already then mention the A# so your 485 will get approved automatically.
Hope this helps.
CHeers, GG
1. Apply for EB2
2. Apply for I-140 under EB-2. Attached your old EB3 I-140 and request for a porting.
3. If you applied for 485 already then mention the A# so your 485 will get approved automatically.
Hope this helps.
CHeers, GG
sanjay
01-09 04:12 PM
why i got red?????? I am saying it is going to be current.
I gave you a green now. So, you have only one red left. LOL people are taking humor seriously.
I gave you a green now. So, you have only one red left. LOL people are taking humor seriously.
more...
gc_chahiye
10-05 05:08 PM
If it is certain that he/she is not eligible for EB2, why should apply in EB2 and get denied. It is better to apply in EB3 to get it approved. The best option is apply in EB3 now. After few years (once he got 5 year exp), apply new LC and 140 with EB2 and transfer the PD. That will be the wise decision. In the current situation, it is funny to talk about EB2 and EB3 for a persion with PD 2007, particularly Indian orgin.
I agree with Ramba here. Go with EB3 now and get the I-140 approval so you can lock in the PD. After a few years can apply again in EB2 (through this, or some other employer) and port the PD over. Best of both worlds.
I agree with Ramba here. Go with EB3 now and get the I-140 approval so you can lock in the PD. After a few years can apply again in EB2 (through this, or some other employer) and port the PD over. Best of both worlds.
pappusheth
05-02 10:43 AM
Thanks guys.. good to know that..
more...
SFGREG
February 2nd, 2004, 10:53 PM
Hi,
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
sandy_anand
01-24 10:06 AM
Last year the annual cap was 149200, so EB1's share by 28.8% rule is 42963
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
Thanks! I stand corrected.
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
Thanks! I stand corrected.
more...
kumarc123
01-16 03:13 PM
please Call !
go Iv
We Can Do This Together
go Iv
We Can Do This Together
GCWarrior
04-16 04:55 PM
Our attorney contacted the service center today to say that it is service error and asked them whether it is possible to reopen the case without going thru official process. Not sure whether this works or not and also whether I should believe this or not? Any one know the occurances of these in the past.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
backtoschool
12-29 08:09 AM
any idea on an INSEAD's MBA value when returning to the US to work? I know it holds in good stand in Europe and Asia...
Insead feeds the consulting world.(mainly). So, there is a value with consuting cos based in the US.
Nayar<<<<
I am surprised to hear that IIM-A PGDBA is worthless in the US
so, what are you doing in the US? did you get another MBA?
Insead feeds the consulting world.(mainly). So, there is a value with consuting cos based in the US.
Nayar<<<<
I am surprised to hear that IIM-A PGDBA is worthless in the US
so, what are you doing in the US? did you get another MBA?
jsb
11-14 12:11 PM
Well, are you sure I would need to work for this "future employer" for 6 months?
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
With LC, I-140 and I-485 process, intentions of employee/employer relationship are expected to be bonafide, otherwise it would be fraud. Although a lot of people mention here, and some attorneys suggest, to work for 6 months for the sponsoring employer, there doesn't appear to be any law on that. Circumstances can change any time (AC21 supports that). Therefore, six month, or whatever period you may want to fix, is merely to strength the case that the sponsorship was bonafide. AC21 guidelines are quite lenient in that matter.
Bottomline is whatever happened, or you can provide, to support that there was no fraudulent intent, you are fine. If situation is not clear, and someone decides to contend, courts may come into picture.
Some people mention that six-month working could haunt you at citizenship time, but I doubt that. USCIS have a lot of other things to look at. If you have been a good citizen until then you should be fine.
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
With LC, I-140 and I-485 process, intentions of employee/employer relationship are expected to be bonafide, otherwise it would be fraud. Although a lot of people mention here, and some attorneys suggest, to work for 6 months for the sponsoring employer, there doesn't appear to be any law on that. Circumstances can change any time (AC21 supports that). Therefore, six month, or whatever period you may want to fix, is merely to strength the case that the sponsorship was bonafide. AC21 guidelines are quite lenient in that matter.
Bottomline is whatever happened, or you can provide, to support that there was no fraudulent intent, you are fine. If situation is not clear, and someone decides to contend, courts may come into picture.
Some people mention that six-month working could haunt you at citizenship time, but I doubt that. USCIS have a lot of other things to look at. If you have been a good citizen until then you should be fine.
more...
gchopefull
10-02 02:54 PM
yes it was approved labour and not a subsitution.
Riakapoor
09-16 05:17 PM
If you are genuine: Don�t do it. It will affect your GC.
If you are losers guild member using Indian name to post: Leave this forum immediately. I am tired of fake posts. I personally believe Riakapoor and ar7165 are fake.
Thanks for the advice. Excuse me how could you say that riakapoor is a fake? I am not active in IV but that doesn't mean I am fake.
If you are losers guild member using Indian name to post: Leave this forum immediately. I am tired of fake posts. I personally believe Riakapoor and ar7165 are fake.
Thanks for the advice. Excuse me how could you say that riakapoor is a fake? I am not active in IV but that doesn't mean I am fake.
more...
Slowhand
07-18 09:32 AM
See below:
Taken from www.immigration-law.com
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
Mr.Oh's opinion is flawed on many counts but most of all assuming what he says is correct, this delay will be/would have been the same either way. i.e the 750000 applicants will apply all at once or at regular intervals. The bright side is that spouses will get their EADs.
Mr.Oh also assumes that USCIS processing procedure and speed will not change.
It sounds like fluff reporting that popular media does. All fluff, no value.:D
Taken from www.immigration-law.com
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
Mr.Oh's opinion is flawed on many counts but most of all assuming what he says is correct, this delay will be/would have been the same either way. i.e the 750000 applicants will apply all at once or at regular intervals. The bright side is that spouses will get their EADs.
Mr.Oh also assumes that USCIS processing procedure and speed will not change.
It sounds like fluff reporting that popular media does. All fluff, no value.:D
.JPG "ray allen hot.")
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
Ryall
09-05 07:45 PM
haha :P I agree the pixel stretch can look awesome (as in the case of Dans splash - great job by the way!)... I just think it is more often used when it would have been better to leave it out or try something different - but it can definitly be the way to go in the right situation.
Peace
Peace
InTheMoment
06-16 04:59 PM
See below
Predierock,
Can you please adivse on the following:
My wife is currently on H4.
She has a H1b approved for 3 years to start working on October 1, 2007.
Now, she gets a EAD (though my I-485) to start working on September 1, 2007 valid for 1 year only.
She has a job and the company would like her join asap.
Questions are:
1. Will her EAD (I-485 pending) cancel her H1B approval for the company?
No, that won't happen as H1B is dual status and she can start working on H1B from Oct 1.
2. Can she work only Sept 1 - Spet-30 on EAD and then fall-back on her H1B (Oct 1 - later) for next 3 years?
That is not possible, once an EAD is used to work falling back on the H1B means going thro' the H1B application process once again since the original H1B is violated.. but more importantly ....USCIS considers this as abandoning your I-485 !
While H1B to EAD means only updating the I-9 the reverse is not easy for reasons abovementioned ;)
We know that H1b is approved and all set for 3 years but Green-Card-EAD is only valid for 1 yr only and sometimes renwal takes time and $$ and bit riskly. So we cant decide if we should stick to her alreay approved H1b or fall back on EAD.
Please advise folks.
Predierock,
Can you please adivse on the following:
My wife is currently on H4.
She has a H1b approved for 3 years to start working on October 1, 2007.
Now, she gets a EAD (though my I-485) to start working on September 1, 2007 valid for 1 year only.
She has a job and the company would like her join asap.
Questions are:
1. Will her EAD (I-485 pending) cancel her H1B approval for the company?
No, that won't happen as H1B is dual status and she can start working on H1B from Oct 1.
2. Can she work only Sept 1 - Spet-30 on EAD and then fall-back on her H1B (Oct 1 - later) for next 3 years?
That is not possible, once an EAD is used to work falling back on the H1B means going thro' the H1B application process once again since the original H1B is violated.. but more importantly ....USCIS considers this as abandoning your I-485 !
While H1B to EAD means only updating the I-9 the reverse is not easy for reasons abovementioned ;)
We know that H1b is approved and all set for 3 years but Green-Card-EAD is only valid for 1 yr only and sometimes renwal takes time and $$ and bit riskly. So we cant decide if we should stick to her alreay approved H1b or fall back on EAD.
Please advise folks.
vinabath
07-16 12:47 PM
Interesting. My Labor says
14) Education BS,
Years of experience 3
15) Other Special Requirements "MS + 1year" OR "BS + 3 years".
I have a MS. My lawyer says this is a EB3 application. 140 still pending. The receipt however says "Skilled Worker". Any possibility my 140 gets approved as EB2?
Anything can happen with USCIS. But i think the position's MINIMUM req is BS+3 years exp and that is EB3.
14) Education BS,
Years of experience 3
15) Other Special Requirements "MS + 1year" OR "BS + 3 years".
I have a MS. My lawyer says this is a EB3 application. 140 still pending. The receipt however says "Skilled Worker". Any possibility my 140 gets approved as EB2?
Anything can happen with USCIS. But i think the position's MINIMUM req is BS+3 years exp and that is EB3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment