chandra_mb
07-18 11:37 PM
I understand that to file 485, all applicants need to be in the US.
Do the dependents/spouse need to be present in the US to file the EAD later (after we get the 485 receipt) ?
Do the dependents/spouse need to be present in the US to file the EAD later (after we get the 485 receipt) ?
wallpaper 2011 how to read guitar tabs
small2006
07-21 10:21 AM
FYI:
I don't know if this is old news but thought of sharing it anyway.
I was in the same boat as many others here i.e, no FP notice even 1yr after filing for 485. With my PD becoming current in Aug 2008, I called my attorney to see if he can do anything to help me out. He told me that due to several complaints from people like us and a law suit threat (or an actual lawsuit, not sure) from AILA, the Texas center has sent has set up an exclusive fax line for such requests. This system came into existence only about 2-3 weeks ago.
He sent a fax on my behalf to that number last Tuesday 7/15/08. My wife and I both received FP notices on Sat 7/19/08! So looks like for a change, something that’s set up for our own good is actually working. Frankly, I hadn’t pinned any hopes on the fax having a positive impact but I was pleasantly surprised. Our appointments are for next week.
Hope this little tip will help others in the same boat if their attorneys are either not aware and/or haven’t told their clients about it.
The fax number is not made available to the general public. Only attorneys have access to it.
BTW: As a result of all this, I haven't seen any LUD changes (soft or hard) on my case status online....I thought that was strange.
I don't know if this is old news but thought of sharing it anyway.
I was in the same boat as many others here i.e, no FP notice even 1yr after filing for 485. With my PD becoming current in Aug 2008, I called my attorney to see if he can do anything to help me out. He told me that due to several complaints from people like us and a law suit threat (or an actual lawsuit, not sure) from AILA, the Texas center has sent has set up an exclusive fax line for such requests. This system came into existence only about 2-3 weeks ago.
He sent a fax on my behalf to that number last Tuesday 7/15/08. My wife and I both received FP notices on Sat 7/19/08! So looks like for a change, something that’s set up for our own good is actually working. Frankly, I hadn’t pinned any hopes on the fax having a positive impact but I was pleasantly surprised. Our appointments are for next week.
Hope this little tip will help others in the same boat if their attorneys are either not aware and/or haven’t told their clients about it.
The fax number is not made available to the general public. Only attorneys have access to it.
BTW: As a result of all this, I haven't seen any LUD changes (soft or hard) on my case status online....I thought that was strange.
panini
06-11 03:48 PM
If you have not been to Canada or lived in Canada since your landing I would assume that your Canadian PR would have been automatically cancelled because of the 3 years out of 5 years rule.
I was wondering if anyone here who had a canadian PR (i.e. did a landing), got GC later has travelled again to Canada again?
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
I was wondering if anyone here who had a canadian PR (i.e. did a landing), got GC later has travelled again to Canada again?
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
2011 In My Coffee Shop Guitar Tabs
chanduv23
07-11 11:45 AM
Hi Folks,
I am one of those guys who has EAD/AP and as per the latest (Aug 08) bulletin, my PD is current.
I just called USCIS and got my 3rd service request number since Oct 2007. So far nothing has happened.
I want to know if this is going to have a negative impact on my 485 approval in anyway? Am I not supposed to have my FP done before they can approve my 485? Isn't that a pre-requisite? I just don't want to miss one more boat due to USCIS screw ups.
Please advise/suggest...
Thanks.
Moderator: apologies for cross-posting but I needed an answer soon.
I am in the same boat. I spoke to my Attorney and she says, it is not an issue. They will ask for finger prints when they start looking at your case.
I am one of those guys who has EAD/AP and as per the latest (Aug 08) bulletin, my PD is current.
I just called USCIS and got my 3rd service request number since Oct 2007. So far nothing has happened.
I want to know if this is going to have a negative impact on my 485 approval in anyway? Am I not supposed to have my FP done before they can approve my 485? Isn't that a pre-requisite? I just don't want to miss one more boat due to USCIS screw ups.
Please advise/suggest...
Thanks.
Moderator: apologies for cross-posting but I needed an answer soon.
I am in the same boat. I spoke to my Attorney and she says, it is not an issue. They will ask for finger prints when they start looking at your case.
more...
mjdup
02-17 01:30 PM
Great job cataphract ! meeting in person helps a lot, I'm wishing MA volunteers step up and get motivated. Does red bull really work ;) just kidding, good luck.
saarejahanseaccha
07-29 04:19 PM
ags123, not to alarm you, but is it possible to apply now for your wife? Since you already got your 485 approved and crossed the proverbial line into the gc land.
Yes, spouse can be added within 180 days of the the primary applicant's 485 was approval, if marriage happened before primary applicants 485 approval.
Yes, spouse can be added within 180 days of the the primary applicant's 485 was approval, if marriage happened before primary applicants 485 approval.
more...
Devils_Advocate
03-12 10:36 PM
Congrats !, please do continue to contribute some of your time and effort to this site, your experience can help others still stuck in their misery
2010 free guitar tabs for eginners. Beginner Guitar Chords
ahiyer
09-08 10:47 AM
I am a little skeptical about how this would work.
Wont they charge you for International dialing when calling from here?
lastly, is it legal?
Wont they charge you for International dialing when calling from here?
lastly, is it legal?
more...
panini
03-16 09:25 PM
Please can anybody help me with this?
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
hair free guitar tabs for eginners
arnet
09-15 03:05 PM
nt for slight difference i think....but they will pass with much difference....
who knows, even they might have difference in areas like lighting,technology,patrols,who construct it, funding, etc.....if they add our provisions then it will definitely goes to committee.....
who knows, even they might have difference in areas like lighting,technology,patrols,who construct it, funding, etc.....if they add our provisions then it will definitely goes to committee.....
more...
javaconsultant
03-28 01:55 PM
This would be a very welcome change ..........
Lets go for it.....I was watching yesterday's bill and could not find this
provision...Correct me if I am wrong....
Let us form a group who are pushing to introduce Ammendment for Filling I485, AP &EAD when I140 approved/pending, eventhough Cut-off dates are not reached for EB category immigration. Please discuss here weather any work being done to introduce this ammendment with present Comprehencive Bill.
Lets go for it.....I was watching yesterday's bill and could not find this
provision...Correct me if I am wrong....
Let us form a group who are pushing to introduce Ammendment for Filling I485, AP &EAD when I140 approved/pending, eventhough Cut-off dates are not reached for EB category immigration. Please discuss here weather any work being done to introduce this ammendment with present Comprehencive Bill.
hot The #39;A#39; guitar chords
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
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)
more...
house Guitar Tabs For Beginners
Apollon
06-29 06:53 PM
I've heard 2 contradicting opinions on this matter, so trying to get to the truth.
My PERM case is about to be filed, let's assume for argument sake the job description
requires Bachelors degree + 5 years of experience.
I have B. Sc. degree, the requirements completed in April 2004.
I've been with the current sponsor, who is applying for my PERM labor case for 15 months,
and without those 15 months I don't have 5 years post graduation experience, required to qualify for EB2 track ( I do have close to 10 years of experience in the field, since I worked during college and even before that, but I was told only post graduation experience counts)
If counting these 15 months with my current H1 sponsor I do have over 5 years of post graduation experience.
Two opinions I've heard:
1. You can only use the current sponsor experience, if the position, you're getting the PERM certification for is at least 50% different in it's job duties from the experience, prior to joining this sponsor.
2. There is no restriction - current sponsor experience counts for EB2 post grad. 5 years.
I'm not interested in opinions or speculations please - only what the law says. If anyone has that information - response is greatly appreciated - my PERM case is about to be filed and I don't my application to get rejected down the road because of not satisfying the EB2 track requirements.
My PERM case is about to be filed, let's assume for argument sake the job description
requires Bachelors degree + 5 years of experience.
I have B. Sc. degree, the requirements completed in April 2004.
I've been with the current sponsor, who is applying for my PERM labor case for 15 months,
and without those 15 months I don't have 5 years post graduation experience, required to qualify for EB2 track ( I do have close to 10 years of experience in the field, since I worked during college and even before that, but I was told only post graduation experience counts)
If counting these 15 months with my current H1 sponsor I do have over 5 years of post graduation experience.
Two opinions I've heard:
1. You can only use the current sponsor experience, if the position, you're getting the PERM certification for is at least 50% different in it's job duties from the experience, prior to joining this sponsor.
2. There is no restriction - current sponsor experience counts for EB2 post grad. 5 years.
I'm not interested in opinions or speculations please - only what the law says. If anyone has that information - response is greatly appreciated - my PERM case is about to be filed and I don't my application to get rejected down the road because of not satisfying the EB2 track requirements.
tattoo free guitar tabs for
sss9i
06-12 10:54 AM
My question is:
My I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and I have I-140 approval as well.
I am planning to change job as soon as possible but I have to give 60 days notice before I resign my Job as per our Employment terms and conditions.
If they withdraw my approval I-140 status between 60 days, what is going to happen my I-485 Status? Still is valid my I-140 and Can I use Ac 21 as per UCCIS memos.
�Do I need to send AC 21 first before opting by the New Employer?
Thank you.
My I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and I have I-140 approval as well.
I am planning to change job as soon as possible but I have to give 60 days notice before I resign my Job as per our Employment terms and conditions.
If they withdraw my approval I-140 status between 60 days, what is going to happen my I-485 Status? Still is valid my I-140 and Can I use Ac 21 as per UCCIS memos.
�Do I need to send AC 21 first before opting by the New Employer?
Thank you.
more...
pictures Beginner acoustic guitar
mhathi
02-03 05:10 PM
Tomplate,
My lawyer had also asked me to keep 485 receipt and EAD with me, but I was not asked to show anything but my passport and the AP documents. They did not even ask for 485 receipts.
Unfortunately I know this does not answer your question fully, but hope it helps even if a bit!
My lawyer had also asked me to keep 485 receipt and EAD with me, but I was not asked to show anything but my passport and the AP documents. They did not even ask for 485 receipts.
Unfortunately I know this does not answer your question fully, but hope it helps even if a bit!
dresses Or Guitar Tabs For Beginners?
GotFreedom?
03-18 01:23 AM
I recently started an LLC here. I looked into several options and learned that LLC is the best way to go if you are a foreign national. I'm working on my H1B and do hold a valid EAD.
Anyone can incorporate an LLC regardless of your immigration status. As an LLC member, you are liable to file for you own tax returns on the profits and any salary drawn from the company. However, the members can choose to file taxes as a corporation as well. The most important part in incorporating a business is to form an Operating Agreement and getting square with IRS by getting the employer Identification number(EIN) so that you can file taxes. None of the banks will let you open a business account with them if you do not have an EIN which is also called as Federal Tax ID number.
You can find a lot of information on the web on this subject. I can shoot you the online service I used in a private message if you are interested. BTW, we formed the LLC in DE and operating from NJ.
Anyone can incorporate an LLC regardless of your immigration status. As an LLC member, you are liable to file for you own tax returns on the profits and any salary drawn from the company. However, the members can choose to file taxes as a corporation as well. The most important part in incorporating a business is to form an Operating Agreement and getting square with IRS by getting the employer Identification number(EIN) so that you can file taxes. None of the banks will let you open a business account with them if you do not have an EIN which is also called as Federal Tax ID number.
You can find a lot of information on the web on this subject. I can shoot you the online service I used in a private message if you are interested. BTW, we formed the LLC in DE and operating from NJ.
more...
makeup Guitar chords- minor chord
chanduv23
11-15 10:19 AM
Still only 6 people have courage to speak out. What is running in your veins, water?
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
I sent u a PM
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
I sent u a PM
girlfriend guitar chords for songs for
tikka
08-07 07:56 PM
and bump///
hairstyles convert guitar tab into chords
desi3933
03-04 11:24 AM
....
My question is - how do we tackle the question if work status is EAD or GC because most times it is asked as a casual question before the interview or during the interview or after the interview.
....
The answer could be
"I have unrestricted employment authorization that allows me to work for any US employer just like green card holder" [example]
Employment can ask for valid employment authorization, but not for kind of employment authorization.
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
[From the link]
The Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm&exitTitle=Immigration_and_Nationality_Act&fedpage=yes) prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
My question is - how do we tackle the question if work status is EAD or GC because most times it is asked as a casual question before the interview or during the interview or after the interview.
....
The answer could be
"I have unrestricted employment authorization that allows me to work for any US employer just like green card holder" [example]
Employment can ask for valid employment authorization, but not for kind of employment authorization.
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
[From the link]
The Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm&exitTitle=Immigration_and_Nationality_Act&fedpage=yes) prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
maddipati1
01-08 07:54 PM
i went for stamping in india in Feb'09. Mine wasn't in PIMS. They said that my visa is issued but will get the PP with stamp after PIMS clearance and it might take upto 2 weeks. but luckily i got it in 3 days.
those whose I-797 was approved around the same time when PIMS was introduced ( i think Oct'07 ), should be careful about this.
i read somewhere that, they messed up initial data transfer during PIMS launch. so the I-797s that got approved around the same time are more likely to be missed. mine was approved exactly in the same month PIMS was implemented and surely it wasn't in PIMS.
funny story now ( but painful then )..
i was aware and prepared for this when i went for stamping. i was at the window of initial screening officer. he took my dox and verified in their system and started writing 'not in PIMS' on top of my app. i was looking at it and i said 'aah! is it not in PIMS?'. he was surprised ( that i knew about PIMS etc) and gave me a look. now, i told to myself 'dude! shut up' :D
minumum precaution u should take is, take the visa appointment on the first couple of days of ur visit, to have buffer for PIMS.
but, i read, there is another type of delay that's the nemsis of pink 221(g) or something like that. this is for people who work in sensitive industries like defense, biotech, chemical etc. that surely take a long time, coz they need clearance from washington.
those whose I-797 was approved around the same time when PIMS was introduced ( i think Oct'07 ), should be careful about this.
i read somewhere that, they messed up initial data transfer during PIMS launch. so the I-797s that got approved around the same time are more likely to be missed. mine was approved exactly in the same month PIMS was implemented and surely it wasn't in PIMS.
funny story now ( but painful then )..
i was aware and prepared for this when i went for stamping. i was at the window of initial screening officer. he took my dox and verified in their system and started writing 'not in PIMS' on top of my app. i was looking at it and i said 'aah! is it not in PIMS?'. he was surprised ( that i knew about PIMS etc) and gave me a look. now, i told to myself 'dude! shut up' :D
minumum precaution u should take is, take the visa appointment on the first couple of days of ur visit, to have buffer for PIMS.
but, i read, there is another type of delay that's the nemsis of pink 221(g) or something like that. this is for people who work in sensitive industries like defense, biotech, chemical etc. that surely take a long time, coz they need clearance from washington.
TheOmbudsman
08-09 11:04 AM
I don't know.
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
Hi All,
I am sure there will be some sort of immigration reform worked out by the mid next year. So please stay calm and enjoy! Eventually you will get your EAD and GC. You just have to hang in there.
peace........
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
Hi All,
I am sure there will be some sort of immigration reform worked out by the mid next year. So please stay calm and enjoy! Eventually you will get your EAD and GC. You just have to hang in there.
peace........
No comments:
Post a Comment