gc_kaavaali
10-28 12:36 PM
I wish you and your family a happy deewaali....
wallpaper husband Marc Anthony
gotgc?
09-16 06:48 PM
Yesterday my employer received notice that my co-workers I-140 was denied and when she went home she received denial notice for her I-485 too. She filed EB2 concurrent.
Hi,
I agree...I am not sure whether your co-worker had another approved I-140... My lawyer said that if I dont have my other I-140 approved, my I-485 would be denied too..since I have that, she is saying that my AOS will continue to be active based on the other I-140...i want to confirm that whether its true and how can I verify that?
Gurus..please share your thoughts....
Hi,
I agree...I am not sure whether your co-worker had another approved I-140... My lawyer said that if I dont have my other I-140 approved, my I-485 would be denied too..since I have that, she is saying that my AOS will continue to be active based on the other I-140...i want to confirm that whether its true and how can I verify that?
Gurus..please share your thoughts....
krishna_brc
05-05 08:54 AM
Yes, we don't need original I-485 receipt notice to travel.
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
2011 Jennifer Lopez#39;s Twins
shana04
02-01 10:44 AM
Thanks for each on every one of you!
some gave me red, its ok.
I had a problem which I though of sharing, may be some one could provide some insight.
It may be my bad that I have posted in wrong thread, but that does not have to mean to give red.
But any ways, for every one who gave red and for every who did leave a message, I thank each and every one of you and wish you good luck on getting your GC.
some gave me red, its ok.
I had a problem which I though of sharing, may be some one could provide some insight.
It may be my bad that I have posted in wrong thread, but that does not have to mean to give red.
But any ways, for every one who gave red and for every who did leave a message, I thank each and every one of you and wish you good luck on getting your GC.
more...
makemygc
08-03 10:58 PM
Here is the link.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Thanks. I still don't see it. It's definitely my cache issue. I even tried firefox but still see the last update of 08/02/2007.
August, 2007
USCIS Urges H-2B Employers to Continue to Identify "Returning Workers" on Petitions for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Start Dates (46KB PDF)
08/02/2007
Fact Sheet: Naturalization Through Military Service (44KB PDF)
08/01/2007
Never mind...it must be something wierd in my machine.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Thanks. I still don't see it. It's definitely my cache issue. I even tried firefox but still see the last update of 08/02/2007.
August, 2007
USCIS Urges H-2B Employers to Continue to Identify "Returning Workers" on Petitions for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Start Dates (46KB PDF)
08/02/2007
Fact Sheet: Naturalization Through Military Service (44KB PDF)
08/01/2007
Never mind...it must be something wierd in my machine.
yabadaba
06-25 02:16 PM
^^^
sorry for the bump...just trying to get a decent sample size
sorry for the bump...just trying to get a decent sample size
more...
funnyman
07-04 09:16 PM
"__________________
EB3 Worldwide
PD 07/11/03
I-140 RD 02/27/06 AD 03/22/06
I-485 RD 05/07/07 filed at TSC
FP 06/02/07 (Code 3) - sent to USCIS same day
LUD 06/05/07
"
For RD to be 05/07/07, you must be eligible to file in the month of May and hence PD should be current as per April VB.
EB3 ROW was still Aug 2002 in April visa bulletin. How could you file for I-485?
EB3 Worldwide
PD 07/11/03
I-140 RD 02/27/06 AD 03/22/06
I-485 RD 05/07/07 filed at TSC
FP 06/02/07 (Code 3) - sent to USCIS same day
LUD 06/05/07
"
For RD to be 05/07/07, you must be eligible to file in the month of May and hence PD should be current as per April VB.
EB3 ROW was still Aug 2002 in April visa bulletin. How could you file for I-485?
2010 Lopez, husband Marc Anthony
desi3933
06-30 01:56 PM
....
I can work in the Software company fulltime but at the same time can work in a motel part time, now when I get lay off from the software company ..I'll be in status but working for motel, also not full filling the condition of Highly skilled labor etc.
Can someone please explain all this. So far I know you cannot have this and this is what my attorney told me when I thought of doing that to open up a company and work as an employee partitme in it.
Mr./Ms. P. Saxena -
Each H-1B must be for specialty occupation, whether job is full time or part time. Beyond that, it does not matter whether job is classified as "Highly Skilled Labor" or not.
USCIS - What is a specialty occupation? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=6408ec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4b18dc4d88889010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
Hopefully this clears your confusion,
Have a good day!
desi3933
I can work in the Software company fulltime but at the same time can work in a motel part time, now when I get lay off from the software company ..I'll be in status but working for motel, also not full filling the condition of Highly skilled labor etc.
Can someone please explain all this. So far I know you cannot have this and this is what my attorney told me when I thought of doing that to open up a company and work as an employee partitme in it.
Mr./Ms. P. Saxena -
Each H-1B must be for specialty occupation, whether job is full time or part time. Beyond that, it does not matter whether job is classified as "Highly Skilled Labor" or not.
USCIS - What is a specialty occupation? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=6408ec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4b18dc4d88889010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
Hopefully this clears your confusion,
Have a good day!
desi3933
more...
binadh
07-12 01:52 PM
On the second thought --- Do you think PR or Citizen Desi's are for us? Any thoughts?
hair husband Marc Anthony
dupedinjuly
07-10 02:48 PM
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680197801,00.html
Workers feeling cheated by green-card reversal
By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News
A surprise government announcement that there were plenty of employer-sponsored green cards available raised Mehul Kapadia's hopes that his wait for permanent residency was finally over.
But then, a sudden announcement that no new green cards will be issued for highly skilled workers until fall has Kapadia wondering if he'll ever find stability in America.
The State Department announced last month that employment visa numbers were available for all people seeking employer-sponsored green cards, except unskilled workers.
Applicants often wait years for those numbers. Kapadia, an Ogden software engineer originally from India, says he's been in line since Dec. 16, 2003.
For now, he's a legal worker with a temporary visa. So, when he saw he could apply for the green card number, Kapadia underwent the required medical exam and submitted his documentation July 2, the first day it could be submitted.
Then, that same day, the State Department issued an update stating that "sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services during the past month have resulted in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers." The department called the backlog reduction an "unexpected action" and said employment visa numbers would be available again Oct. 1.
CIS had been working since May to reduce a backlog in applications it already has on file, said Bill Wright, spokesman for the agency.
"There's a numerical limitation of roughly 147,000 visas available (annually)," he said. "Once we met that numerical limitation, we requested that the State Department post a brand new, revised bulletin that anything after that is no longer eligible."
The State Department had originally posted the bulletin to ensure that all available visas for the fiscal year would be issued, said Steve Royster, State Department spokesman for consular affairs. Last year, he said, roughly 10,000 such visas weren't issued.
"Processing visas on file with CIS is going to benefit all the applicants in the pool, and this will ensure the entire allotment of visas for 2007 will be used," he said.
But Kapadia now says he feels cheated by two federal agencies that said one thing one day and another the next.
"Nobody knows what happened," he said. "This was kind of a big rejection and sense of being let down, but for what? We still can't comprehend why they acted in this extraordinary manner."
Kapadia isn't alone. Tens of thousands of people who work in the United States under employment visas and their families were affected by the change, said Crystal Williams, associate director for programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
"There are people who flew to the United States so they could apply and had their families fly back. They paid attorney fees," Williams said.
AILA's sister organization, the American Immigration Law Foundation, is considering a lawsuit against the two federal agencies, Williams said.
"We've gone back now about 25 years and have never found a situation in which a bulletin was revised after the first of the month," she said.
Neither Royster nor Wright would comment on potential litigation. Wright suggested that anyone who filed an application on July 2 contact their local CIS office to find out the status.
The fee to apply for a green card increases July 30 from $395 to $1,010, including a fingerprinting fee.
Kapadia says he isn't worried about the fee hike so much as the freedom he'd receive with permanent residency. He'd be able to travel internationally without restrictions, and establish residency to study for a master's degree. He and his wife would be able to remain in the country if he loses his job, and they'd eventually be able to apply for citizenship.
"It's kind of a golden cage we are in. We are free, we are in America, but we are stopped from doing anything," he said. "I am looking for the American dream, but it is looking like more of a mirage."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributing: The Associated Press
E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com
Workers feeling cheated by green-card reversal
By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News
A surprise government announcement that there were plenty of employer-sponsored green cards available raised Mehul Kapadia's hopes that his wait for permanent residency was finally over.
But then, a sudden announcement that no new green cards will be issued for highly skilled workers until fall has Kapadia wondering if he'll ever find stability in America.
The State Department announced last month that employment visa numbers were available for all people seeking employer-sponsored green cards, except unskilled workers.
Applicants often wait years for those numbers. Kapadia, an Ogden software engineer originally from India, says he's been in line since Dec. 16, 2003.
For now, he's a legal worker with a temporary visa. So, when he saw he could apply for the green card number, Kapadia underwent the required medical exam and submitted his documentation July 2, the first day it could be submitted.
Then, that same day, the State Department issued an update stating that "sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services during the past month have resulted in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers." The department called the backlog reduction an "unexpected action" and said employment visa numbers would be available again Oct. 1.
CIS had been working since May to reduce a backlog in applications it already has on file, said Bill Wright, spokesman for the agency.
"There's a numerical limitation of roughly 147,000 visas available (annually)," he said. "Once we met that numerical limitation, we requested that the State Department post a brand new, revised bulletin that anything after that is no longer eligible."
The State Department had originally posted the bulletin to ensure that all available visas for the fiscal year would be issued, said Steve Royster, State Department spokesman for consular affairs. Last year, he said, roughly 10,000 such visas weren't issued.
"Processing visas on file with CIS is going to benefit all the applicants in the pool, and this will ensure the entire allotment of visas for 2007 will be used," he said.
But Kapadia now says he feels cheated by two federal agencies that said one thing one day and another the next.
"Nobody knows what happened," he said. "This was kind of a big rejection and sense of being let down, but for what? We still can't comprehend why they acted in this extraordinary manner."
Kapadia isn't alone. Tens of thousands of people who work in the United States under employment visas and their families were affected by the change, said Crystal Williams, associate director for programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
"There are people who flew to the United States so they could apply and had their families fly back. They paid attorney fees," Williams said.
AILA's sister organization, the American Immigration Law Foundation, is considering a lawsuit against the two federal agencies, Williams said.
"We've gone back now about 25 years and have never found a situation in which a bulletin was revised after the first of the month," she said.
Neither Royster nor Wright would comment on potential litigation. Wright suggested that anyone who filed an application on July 2 contact their local CIS office to find out the status.
The fee to apply for a green card increases July 30 from $395 to $1,010, including a fingerprinting fee.
Kapadia says he isn't worried about the fee hike so much as the freedom he'd receive with permanent residency. He'd be able to travel internationally without restrictions, and establish residency to study for a master's degree. He and his wife would be able to remain in the country if he loses his job, and they'd eventually be able to apply for citizenship.
"It's kind of a golden cage we are in. We are free, we are in America, but we are stopped from doing anything," he said. "I am looking for the American dream, but it is looking like more of a mirage."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributing: The Associated Press
E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com
more...
bestia
07-20 02:37 AM
I think another argument would be to request a statistics of how many actual terrorists or big criminals FBI caught during that "name check" process. Why would a terrorist apply for LC/I-140/I-485, go to FP, sit at the same address for years, provide his true identity and real (not fake) documents, and wait while FBI will check his name? And then he will sit and wait until FBI will knock his door? Did FBI catch at least ONE person during that process?
Another argument. Why GC should be issued only AFTER name check? What difference from security stand point makes if a person on GC or on EAD/AP cycle? If he is a terrorist he suppose to be caught, interrogated, charged, centenced, deported. The law allows doing that on either GC or EAD/AP stage. So then why torture people on EAD/AP stage for years?
Another argument. Why GC should be issued only AFTER name check? What difference from security stand point makes if a person on GC or on EAD/AP cycle? If he is a terrorist he suppose to be caught, interrogated, charged, centenced, deported. The law allows doing that on either GC or EAD/AP stage. So then why torture people on EAD/AP stage for years?
hot Lopez and husband, Marc
zCool
05-21 03:06 PM
Well i dont think thats true that it is must that i have to send the AC21. Like i can always get the employment letter from my employer who sponsered me for my green card. All i was asking was that IF I DO GET THE EVL RFE (I HOPE NOT) then in that instance what i am suppose to do? Get a letter from my current employer or the employer who sponsored me for green card?
You have to get it from your prospective permanant employer. If you have intention of working for your past employer after you get GC, that would be it,
If you've made decision to work for your current employer on Permanant basis then that would be it..
It's not good or bad.. just keep it simple
You have to get it from your prospective permanant employer. If you have intention of working for your past employer after you get GC, that would be it,
If you've made decision to work for your current employer on Permanant basis then that would be it..
It's not good or bad.. just keep it simple
more...
house Jennifer Lopez and her husband
deecha
06-17 01:20 PM
So if i created an app and sold it, wouldn't i be working for myself and deriving financial compensation?
He could have developed the app outside the united states. He could have written the app in his spare time (He is not being paid to do it, maybe just a hobby). When he sells the app., it is not a salary. It is more like a dividend or rent (An H1B/F1/etc. can legally own property and derive rent .. it is not employment income). Furthermore, he can set up a LLC or an INC and sell the app through that but he should not have worked for that company while developing that app.
Lots of ways to get around it. Most laws are subject to interpretation and they're not absolute. If laws were absolute, we'd all be in the grip of tyranny and be slaves. There are only a few natural laws that are absolute.
As one person said on one of the threads (I think EB2 vs EB3), there is a tendency for people to achieve something and then set the bar just below them to exclude other people from competing with them either through laws or deprivation of resources (History is replete with such examples .. look at the kind of laws and regulations people are trying to pass). We must guard against such behavior/attitude and allow everyone a fair chance to succeed in life.
He could have developed the app outside the united states. He could have written the app in his spare time (He is not being paid to do it, maybe just a hobby). When he sells the app., it is not a salary. It is more like a dividend or rent (An H1B/F1/etc. can legally own property and derive rent .. it is not employment income). Furthermore, he can set up a LLC or an INC and sell the app through that but he should not have worked for that company while developing that app.
Lots of ways to get around it. Most laws are subject to interpretation and they're not absolute. If laws were absolute, we'd all be in the grip of tyranny and be slaves. There are only a few natural laws that are absolute.
As one person said on one of the threads (I think EB2 vs EB3), there is a tendency for people to achieve something and then set the bar just below them to exclude other people from competing with them either through laws or deprivation of resources (History is replete with such examples .. look at the kind of laws and regulations people are trying to pass). We must guard against such behavior/attitude and allow everyone a fair chance to succeed in life.
tattoo Music ». Entertainer
satishku_2000
08-10 05:05 PM
may be he is not from india :D
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
more...
pictures The fans of Jennifer Lopez are
yabayaba
10-11 10:35 AM
It not the right time to start campaign. All policians will be busy in elections an they may not hear waht we say. After elections may be the right time to do.
dresses Jennifer Lopez
WeShallOvercome
07-31 12:41 PM
I think at the present time this could be in doubt in all honesty since the USCIS have said there are no visa numbers available and are only accepting applications since they screwed up. So in essence there are no priority dates that are current. Your age is only set in 'stone' if your I485 is submitted when a visa number is available to you and that is not the case through August 17th.
Guess this rather strange outcome of the visa bulletin fiasco could raise any number of new scenarios.
You are right but the same condition exists for filing I-485.
If they allowed you to file I-485, that means they will consider everything else in the same spirit... I'm pretty sure those children will not age out!
Guess this rather strange outcome of the visa bulletin fiasco could raise any number of new scenarios.
You are right but the same condition exists for filing I-485.
If they allowed you to file I-485, that means they will consider everything else in the same spirit... I'm pretty sure those children will not age out!
more...
makeup Jennifer Lopez amp; Marc Anthony
duttasurajit
10-18 12:19 PM
Thanks everyone for the valued response. One last question:
I was under the impression that the job title does not matter for AC21 as long as the job duties are similar. For example, instead of IT Manager, say, I get a title of Developement Lead/Team Lead and the Job duties are similar.
What happens in this case? Is it still risky to pursue AC21?
I was under the impression that the job title does not matter for AC21 as long as the job duties are similar. For example, instead of IT Manager, say, I get a title of Developement Lead/Team Lead and the Job duties are similar.
What happens in this case? Is it still risky to pursue AC21?
girlfriend JENNIFER Lopez has been named
dealsnet
07-17 10:46 AM
H1B fee + training fee also have to pay while filing.
See details.
Note: Filing Fees
A U.S. employer filing an H-1B petition must submit the $320 petition filing fee and, unless exempt under Part B of the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement of this form, an additional fee of either $750 or $1,500. A U.S. employer with a total of 25 or less full-time equivalent employees in the United States (including any affiliate or subsidiary of the employer) is only obligated to pay the $750 fee.
read moreUSCIS - Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D)
By "Training" did you mean "Filing"?
Otherwise it does not make any sense.
See details.
Note: Filing Fees
A U.S. employer filing an H-1B petition must submit the $320 petition filing fee and, unless exempt under Part B of the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement of this form, an additional fee of either $750 or $1,500. A U.S. employer with a total of 25 or less full-time equivalent employees in the United States (including any affiliate or subsidiary of the employer) is only obligated to pay the $750 fee.
read moreUSCIS - Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D)
By "Training" did you mean "Filing"?
Otherwise it does not make any sense.
hairstyles (Husband) Marc (Anthony) was
hopefulgc
12-16 01:33 PM
Have a paper copy of your license saved somewhere.
I have used that in the past when i lost my license with a traffic cop. It took him 15 mins to verify my information, but saved me from getting at ticket.
If EAD and License have same expiry then what happens for license renewal during that last 6 months. It appears, I am going to get in a similar situation. My conern is about the remote possibility - What if my license gets damaged or lost during those last 6 months. As per their current law they will not issue a replacement license since the EAD is not valid for more than 6 months. EAD can be renewed 120 days before and for license to be renewed the EAD has to be valid for more than 6 months.
The last 6 months of "no-license replacement" is making me very anxious.
I have used that in the past when i lost my license with a traffic cop. It took him 15 mins to verify my information, but saved me from getting at ticket.
If EAD and License have same expiry then what happens for license renewal during that last 6 months. It appears, I am going to get in a similar situation. My conern is about the remote possibility - What if my license gets damaged or lost during those last 6 months. As per their current law they will not issue a replacement license since the EAD is not valid for more than 6 months. EAD can be renewed 120 days before and for license to be renewed the EAD has to be valid for more than 6 months.
The last 6 months of "no-license replacement" is making me very anxious.
pal351
02-11 05:57 PM
http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2009/02/prweb200 0494.htm
pitha
05-22 04:40 PM
Its not clear yet if priority date comes into the picture at all. Nothing is clear yet, for example for the Canadian points system does not have a country quota or any limits on the number of gc every year. There is a cetain pass mark and if you have the required pass marks you make it.
With the CIR points system there is an annual limit and also a country quota, so how will they select candiddates,
1. based on pass marks?
2. based on who has the highest number of points for each country
3. Does the priority date come into plat at all?
hope somebody has the answers for these questions.
If you have I140 cleared from company A you can use Priority date if you change Job and apply fresh GC from Company B in any catergory.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
With the CIR points system there is an annual limit and also a country quota, so how will they select candiddates,
1. based on pass marks?
2. based on who has the highest number of points for each country
3. Does the priority date come into plat at all?
hope somebody has the answers for these questions.
If you have I140 cleared from company A you can use Priority date if you change Job and apply fresh GC from Company B in any catergory.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment