fide_champ
06-25 08:41 AM
As we all know that priority dates became current in the latest visa bulletin. My lawyer made all my paper work ready and is about to file my paperwork with USCIS today. I am not sure if we can file the application a week before it actually becomes current.
I heard some people say that it's actually allowed to file 3 or 4 days before it becomes current. I also read reports that some people's application was rejected because it was sent too early. I am not sure what to believe here. Does anybody has any information on this?
I heard some people say that it's actually allowed to file 3 or 4 days before it becomes current. I also read reports that some people's application was rejected because it was sent too early. I am not sure what to believe here. Does anybody has any information on this?
wallpaper your iPod Touch (4th Gen.
peer123
04-09 01:47 PM
I guess you won't find much love for labor transfer cases in these forums but AFAIK AC21 has nothing to do with whom the labor was filed for.
I appreciate your help, but just to justify you, I have been in this country for more than 8 years now and I have no clue what happened to my labor, I applied it way back in 2001 and one more 2004.
anyway, I think many have been helped. and I wish everyone the best...
I appreciate your help, but just to justify you, I have been in this country for more than 8 years now and I have no clue what happened to my labor, I applied it way back in 2001 and one more 2004.
anyway, I think many have been helped. and I wish everyone the best...
texcan
08-22 03:00 PM
" Rally in each state" is a fantastic idea. Lets do it.
But lets concentrate on one location in Texas and for that matter in
every state to pack more punch.
I think everyone can drive to one common location in texas.
Since Austin is capital, i propose rally in Austin for Texas.
Let do it.
But lets concentrate on one location in Texas and for that matter in
every state to pack more punch.
I think everyone can drive to one common location in texas.
Since Austin is capital, i propose rally in Austin for Texas.
Let do it.
2011 ipod touch 4th generation
cahaba
04-13 04:22 PM
Any ideas guys on legal ways to tacke this situation? This is extremely urgent. Pl let know if you have any comments.
more...
gjoe
10-05 01:49 PM
Can anyone say when i am going to get my GC if i filed my application for I-485 in EB1 category in oct 2007
Maybe by the end of this year. Good luck man
Maybe by the end of this year. Good luck man
morchu
05-14 12:04 PM
Not true.
Your H1B status starts from the "start date" shown in the COS/H1B approval notice. If the H1B is approved for this fiscal year, most probably it will be October 1, 2009. So till then you are in L1.
Also nothing prohibits you from re-entering on a valid L1 visa, but after re-entry you are assumed to be in L1 status. And you might end up filing COS petition one more time.
Now your question is interesting, because you are re-entering in a period of your L1 validity and I assume H1 is not valid for status till 2009 Oct.
I am not really sure about all the possible solutions in this situation. The solution I know is, enter using L1 and file another COS (not a full H1 petition, but just a COS, showing already approved H1).
Answer to OP;s questions are:
1. Yes
2. Might abandon the COS (not sure about this). But definitely your H1 is not abandoned.
3. Not automatic, another COS might be required.
Questions 4,5,6,7 are irrelavant after you file a COS on re-entry.
Since your H-1B change of status is approved, you are in H-1B Status now. In order to continue working on H-1B status after overseas trip, you must enter USA using H-1B visa stamp. This may require you to apply and get new H-1B visa stamp.
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Your H1B status starts from the "start date" shown in the COS/H1B approval notice. If the H1B is approved for this fiscal year, most probably it will be October 1, 2009. So till then you are in L1.
Also nothing prohibits you from re-entering on a valid L1 visa, but after re-entry you are assumed to be in L1 status. And you might end up filing COS petition one more time.
Now your question is interesting, because you are re-entering in a period of your L1 validity and I assume H1 is not valid for status till 2009 Oct.
I am not really sure about all the possible solutions in this situation. The solution I know is, enter using L1 and file another COS (not a full H1 petition, but just a COS, showing already approved H1).
Answer to OP;s questions are:
1. Yes
2. Might abandon the COS (not sure about this). But definitely your H1 is not abandoned.
3. Not automatic, another COS might be required.
Questions 4,5,6,7 are irrelavant after you file a COS on re-entry.
Since your H-1B change of status is approved, you are in H-1B Status now. In order to continue working on H-1B status after overseas trip, you must enter USA using H-1B visa stamp. This may require you to apply and get new H-1B visa stamp.
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
more...
aillarramendi
10-01 02:23 PM
I'm understanding now and thanks but I still didn't understand why a guy from EB3 ROW with PD March 2004 is receiving now I-485 approval (GC) if the last VB shows 01 AUG, 2002?
Thanks.
Thanks.
2010 ipod touch 4th generation
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
kondur_007
09-22 09:58 AM
I have a pending I-485 application (EB-3) and effective Oct 1, my PD will be current. My application has been pending for more than six months already so I will be covered by AC21. I never worked for my sponsoring employer but will be as soon as I get my GC.
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
Well, you have two options:
1. Use AC 21 (I am assuming your 140 is approved and 485 is filed more than 6 months ago) and move to another employer BEFORE the approval of GC. With this option, neither you nor your employer would have any obligation for the job after GC approval. Your AC 21 employer is now the "new permanent job" for you after GC approval.
2. If you have good terms with the employer, ask them to hire you for at least 1-2 months after GC approval and then "fire" you. This way you would be safe. (it was not your fault but the employer fired you). Also if the employer does not pay salary mentioned in LC, you can leave them giving that reason (save the pay stubs for evidence later on, if asked for).
3. If your employer simply do not offer you a job after the approval of GC, it still would not be yoru fault. In this scenario, likelyhood is that, you will be safe. However, this technically would be a sort of misrepresentation by the employer and on that grould USCIS can revoke your GC saying that "employer falsified the initial job offer and there was really no job ever for the position mentioned on LC". While this is a possibility it is a remote possibility.
I would suggest option 1,2 and 3 in that order as "desirability" of your situation.
Again I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can suggest as far as I know.
Good Luck.
I have a feeling that my green card is just around the corner. Spoke to my employer yesterday about my employment with them and it looks like they are changing their minds about hiring me.
I am so worried. Anybody in the same situation? What do I do? Will I lose the green card?
Well, you have two options:
1. Use AC 21 (I am assuming your 140 is approved and 485 is filed more than 6 months ago) and move to another employer BEFORE the approval of GC. With this option, neither you nor your employer would have any obligation for the job after GC approval. Your AC 21 employer is now the "new permanent job" for you after GC approval.
2. If you have good terms with the employer, ask them to hire you for at least 1-2 months after GC approval and then "fire" you. This way you would be safe. (it was not your fault but the employer fired you). Also if the employer does not pay salary mentioned in LC, you can leave them giving that reason (save the pay stubs for evidence later on, if asked for).
3. If your employer simply do not offer you a job after the approval of GC, it still would not be yoru fault. In this scenario, likelyhood is that, you will be safe. However, this technically would be a sort of misrepresentation by the employer and on that grould USCIS can revoke your GC saying that "employer falsified the initial job offer and there was really no job ever for the position mentioned on LC". While this is a possibility it is a remote possibility.
I would suggest option 1,2 and 3 in that order as "desirability" of your situation.
Again I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can suggest as far as I know.
Good Luck.
hair 4th Generation iPod Touch
qwert_47
09-26 01:17 AM
Thanks for the advices/suggestions.
The reason my h1b was denied because the consultant showed that I would be working for him instead of working for client. I suspect he didn't respond well for the RFE earlier in the case.
Is it possible to submit a motion for reconsideration by a new employer(when I find one in the next month or so)? To make things worse, I am having a hard time concentrating on possible upcoming interview because of my h1b visa denial. Pls tell me what options do I have if I am made an offer by a private(profit) employer. BTW my master is in comp. engg and I completed my masters in Dec 06.
Its really disheartening to wait one more year to start work along with my increasing debts. Its bad being job-searching-graduated-student in USA with this situation.
TIA
The reason my h1b was denied because the consultant showed that I would be working for him instead of working for client. I suspect he didn't respond well for the RFE earlier in the case.
Is it possible to submit a motion for reconsideration by a new employer(when I find one in the next month or so)? To make things worse, I am having a hard time concentrating on possible upcoming interview because of my h1b visa denial. Pls tell me what options do I have if I am made an offer by a private(profit) employer. BTW my master is in comp. engg and I completed my masters in Dec 06.
Its really disheartening to wait one more year to start work along with my increasing debts. Its bad being job-searching-graduated-student in USA with this situation.
TIA
more...
newbie2020
05-18 07:42 AM
This one is an earlier bills introduced earlier ,This is similar to the bills being discussed
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
hot iPod Touch 4th Generation
nhfirefighter13
November 25th, 2005, 07:51 AM
The first one isn't doing anything for me. I like the second one better but agree with the others that it needs a bit more DOF...and I'd go so far as to see if you could make the image (flower) as large as the lighter version.
more...
house ipod touch 4th generation cases and skins. ipod touch cases and skins.
optimystic
03-19 02:44 PM
Well...my PD is current and my RD at Nebraska is also current as per thier processing times. But still no LUDs or any other updates so far :( (its been 19 days since my PD became current)
I already spoke to USCIS IO one week back, and was told its a bit too early, and wait for 45 days and call back if nothing happens until then. They weren't willing to give me the status whether my Namecheck crossed 180 days.
Just going to wait until April 1, and then call them again. Or get an INFOPASS . What do the gurus suggest?
[EB3 - I , PD May 2001, RD July 30 07, Nebraska ]
I already spoke to USCIS IO one week back, and was told its a bit too early, and wait for 45 days and call back if nothing happens until then. They weren't willing to give me the status whether my Namecheck crossed 180 days.
Just going to wait until April 1, and then call them again. Or get an INFOPASS . What do the gurus suggest?
[EB3 - I , PD May 2001, RD July 30 07, Nebraska ]
tattoo Skin your iPod touch 4th Gen
smartboy75
09-22 11:11 PM
09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
more...
pictures ipod touch 4th generation cases and skins. iPod touch 4th Generation
LostInGCProcess
08-25 11:53 AM
Hi there,
My wife is going to Chennai for a H1 visa stamping. Her old visa expired somewhere in 2006. She is now on her second extension of H1 and has not traveled since then...now she is going to India and going to Chennai consulate to get her H1 visa.
She is a dependent on me wrt i-485. She has EAD and AP. However, she is still on H1 (hasn't used the EAD thus far).
My hypothetical question is: in the even if she gets a 221(g) at the consulate can she return to US with the AP she has?
Thanks,
My wife is going to Chennai for a H1 visa stamping. Her old visa expired somewhere in 2006. She is now on her second extension of H1 and has not traveled since then...now she is going to India and going to Chennai consulate to get her H1 visa.
She is a dependent on me wrt i-485. She has EAD and AP. However, she is still on H1 (hasn't used the EAD thus far).
My hypothetical question is: in the even if she gets a 221(g) at the consulate can she return to US with the AP she has?
Thanks,
dresses iPod Touch 4th Generation
priti8888
10-05 11:56 AM
How can someone with EB3 with a later PD get GC before me? If he has been approved there should be valid reason why mine is not approved, the reason should be something other than USCIS ineffeciency.
Because his RD is before yours. When a PD is current , GC is isssued based on RD.So if your PD is May 2002, but RD is July 2007. and another guys PD is May 2004 but his RD is June 2007...The other guy will get GC first.
In july uscis assigned visa numbers to variious cases with older RD regardless of PD.Hence, you will see approvals in the coming month, inspite of the fact that their PD is not current.
Because his RD is before yours. When a PD is current , GC is isssued based on RD.So if your PD is May 2002, but RD is July 2007. and another guys PD is May 2004 but his RD is June 2007...The other guy will get GC first.
In july uscis assigned visa numbers to variious cases with older RD regardless of PD.Hence, you will see approvals in the coming month, inspite of the fact that their PD is not current.
more...
makeup ipod touch 4th generation cases and skins. Ipod Touch 4th Generation
japs19
01-22 11:18 AM
Red my other posts where I wrote my experience as I was asked the same question. But here's the answers to your questions in nut shell.
If you have a valid H-1 visa then just stick to it and don't us AP unless you have to.
If CBP officer don't ask, you don't tell, but if s/he does, be HONEST and tell them that you don't. It will really stir the pot but politely tell them that GC on Employment Base is for future employment and that has been my understanding and in good faith my intentions are to go and work for that employer.
They can really harass you for hours like they did me for 6 hrs and then was told to go downtown office. BTW just on a positive note, my AP has been stamped and I am good to go.
There is no law that defines that you have to be working for the original petitioner while your application is being processed but just ethically it's a much better situation if you are employed by the same employer. CBP offficer's argument was that "what's the guarantee that you will go and work for that employer after approval of your GC? or what is the guarantee that they will have that position open for all these years as it may take a very long time?" I told them with a chuckle on my face that if it hadn't taken USCIS 3-4 years to process that application, that wouldn't be the question but they are still processing my file...I mean how many people you gave an offer letter who you want to start after 4 years as a CBP officer?" He gave me a rude smile and walked away to secondary check section.
Anyways....long story short, be honest, have patience and don't show desperation to enter the country.
Good luck...
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
If you have a valid H-1 visa then just stick to it and don't us AP unless you have to.
If CBP officer don't ask, you don't tell, but if s/he does, be HONEST and tell them that you don't. It will really stir the pot but politely tell them that GC on Employment Base is for future employment and that has been my understanding and in good faith my intentions are to go and work for that employer.
They can really harass you for hours like they did me for 6 hrs and then was told to go downtown office. BTW just on a positive note, my AP has been stamped and I am good to go.
There is no law that defines that you have to be working for the original petitioner while your application is being processed but just ethically it's a much better situation if you are employed by the same employer. CBP offficer's argument was that "what's the guarantee that you will go and work for that employer after approval of your GC? or what is the guarantee that they will have that position open for all these years as it may take a very long time?" I told them with a chuckle on my face that if it hadn't taken USCIS 3-4 years to process that application, that wouldn't be the question but they are still processing my file...I mean how many people you gave an offer letter who you want to start after 4 years as a CBP officer?" He gave me a rude smile and walked away to secondary check section.
Anyways....long story short, be honest, have patience and don't show desperation to enter the country.
Good luck...
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
girlfriend WTS: IPod Touch 2nd/3rd/4th
gcpool
08-23 12:02 PM
in EB3, EB2 and EB1
hairstyles your iPod Touch (4th Gen.
sanju_dba
02-01 09:22 AM
Congrats!
meridiani.planum
04-06 02:34 AM
inline...
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
>> Personal choice here. However, it proves that your intent was not correct. If you think you would be stuck for many years, may be you should - you know it better, because the hassle and risk is not worth the little extra money.
-- there is no issue with intent. He has stayed for 6 months with current employer. After 6 months the law itself allows him to change sponsoring employer, so where is the question of intent?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
>> You better do inform the USCIS of your intentions (including AC21) if you want to keep the H1 visa status active. Because if you had registered all your cases (present or old past receipt notices too) at USCIS website, you would have noticed that there are recent LUDs on the first H1/? that you entered the US. Had you known this you would not have asked this question ;-)
--what are you talking about? A LUD could mean anything from a system update to your previous employer finally cancelling your H1. What recent-LUDs-on-first-H1 are you talking about?
>> (Also remember that when you use EAD : presently it means loosing H1 permanently unless you have some time left from the 6 year limit),
--Why? If you have an approved I-140 you can file an H1 extension even if yuou are on EAD. It does require you to leave the US and return to 'activate' the H1 though.
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer?
>> It should be good to check the employee base and financial position of the new employer. The USCIS may deny your H1 transfer and leave you in a tough spot. It may also affect the 485 decision as success of AC21 is also dependent upon this.
-- USCIS has clarified that abiity-to-pay has to only be proven by original sponsoror. Where does it say that financial position of new employer is important for success of AC-21?
Here's a link to, and info from the USCIS memo:
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other
words, from the new company/employer to which someone has
ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment.
agree with the rest of your post.
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
>> Personal choice here. However, it proves that your intent was not correct. If you think you would be stuck for many years, may be you should - you know it better, because the hassle and risk is not worth the little extra money.
-- there is no issue with intent. He has stayed for 6 months with current employer. After 6 months the law itself allows him to change sponsoring employer, so where is the question of intent?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
>> You better do inform the USCIS of your intentions (including AC21) if you want to keep the H1 visa status active. Because if you had registered all your cases (present or old past receipt notices too) at USCIS website, you would have noticed that there are recent LUDs on the first H1/? that you entered the US. Had you known this you would not have asked this question ;-)
--what are you talking about? A LUD could mean anything from a system update to your previous employer finally cancelling your H1. What recent-LUDs-on-first-H1 are you talking about?
>> (Also remember that when you use EAD : presently it means loosing H1 permanently unless you have some time left from the 6 year limit),
--Why? If you have an approved I-140 you can file an H1 extension even if yuou are on EAD. It does require you to leave the US and return to 'activate' the H1 though.
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer?
>> It should be good to check the employee base and financial position of the new employer. The USCIS may deny your H1 transfer and leave you in a tough spot. It may also affect the 485 decision as success of AC21 is also dependent upon this.
-- USCIS has clarified that abiity-to-pay has to only be proven by original sponsoror. Where does it say that financial position of new employer is important for success of AC-21?
Here's a link to, and info from the USCIS memo:
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other
words, from the new company/employer to which someone has
ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment.
agree with the rest of your post.
gc_kaavaali
06-14 02:04 PM
Do not worry too much if your sister is innocent. Tell your family and sisters also. Keep faith. Investigation will be honest. Nothing will impact (including GC) if your sister is innocent.
Hi Friends,
This is first time I am posting this topic here. Please excuse me if this is wrong post or question at this time.
Today my sister got a phone call from a Detective saying that she is suspecting on Jewelery theft from a neighborhood. We shocked for getting that type of call. The person who complainted is close to my family. He is also Indian and from same region. Recently he moved from my city. He lost couple of jewelery items this year.
My sister is very good and try to help most of the people nearby. The detective said that investigation is going on for this issue. We are so worrying on this issue.
We know she is genuine and did not do anything but my question is any problem in green card process?.
How to prove my sister is not commited such kind of activity. Please try to help me on this
Thanks
Ramkrishna
Hi Friends,
This is first time I am posting this topic here. Please excuse me if this is wrong post or question at this time.
Today my sister got a phone call from a Detective saying that she is suspecting on Jewelery theft from a neighborhood. We shocked for getting that type of call. The person who complainted is close to my family. He is also Indian and from same region. Recently he moved from my city. He lost couple of jewelery items this year.
My sister is very good and try to help most of the people nearby. The detective said that investigation is going on for this issue. We are so worrying on this issue.
We know she is genuine and did not do anything but my question is any problem in green card process?.
How to prove my sister is not commited such kind of activity. Please try to help me on this
Thanks
Ramkrishna
No comments:
Post a Comment