ram_ram
10-01 09:43 AM
The backlogs at DOLS's found a solution..PERM. Similarly premium processing was introduced for I-140's. I think now it's time to move the Departments and courts to find a more efficient Security/Name check process. If not USCIS will continue to loose tons of visa numbers every year. Though USCIS has 26 k cases that has the visa number available,
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
wallpaper funny military pictures
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
kaisersose
05-29 07:39 PM
I have a early 2004 Priority date (EB3 India) and asked my attorney if it is wise to reapply in Eb2 as it is current in that date, and she says she believes my Eb3 PD to get current by july. Folks, what do you think ?
No one really knows. That means there is a 50% chance she may be right.
However, it is generally accepted that it is wise to apply for 485 without delay as soon as the PD is current without waiting for I-140 approvals as these dates can retrogress again.
Many people with PD current are hesitating to apply for 485 as they want to wait for I140 approval to save 485 fees. This is very wrong and in case the dates retrogress again (there is a good chance), you will actually end up losing several thousands of dollars because you tried to save one thousand dollars.
Look at the big picture and do not get into the money saving mode now. If you lawyer asks you to wait, get a second opinion from a reputed lawyer.
No one really knows. That means there is a 50% chance she may be right.
However, it is generally accepted that it is wise to apply for 485 without delay as soon as the PD is current without waiting for I-140 approvals as these dates can retrogress again.
Many people with PD current are hesitating to apply for 485 as they want to wait for I140 approval to save 485 fees. This is very wrong and in case the dates retrogress again (there is a good chance), you will actually end up losing several thousands of dollars because you tried to save one thousand dollars.
Look at the big picture and do not get into the money saving mode now. If you lawyer asks you to wait, get a second opinion from a reputed lawyer.
2011 Funny Military quotes
FinalGC
10-16 01:52 PM
Kambi:
Based on current stats,
LC - It will take about 4 months from the date you initiate your case with your lawyer
140- Eb2 or eb 3 will take from 4 weeks to 4 months
485 - If u are from India or China and based on current situation for Eb2 it could take upto 4 years and 6-7 years for EB3. If you are from Rest of the world it would be 1-2 years.
However, if the SKIL bill passes, things could change and you could get the whole GC within 2 years or so.........Keep hopeful...that is what I am doing after 8 years on H1........with a MBA from a US University!!
Based on current stats,
LC - It will take about 4 months from the date you initiate your case with your lawyer
140- Eb2 or eb 3 will take from 4 weeks to 4 months
485 - If u are from India or China and based on current situation for Eb2 it could take upto 4 years and 6-7 years for EB3. If you are from Rest of the world it would be 1-2 years.
However, if the SKIL bill passes, things could change and you could get the whole GC within 2 years or so.........Keep hopeful...that is what I am doing after 8 years on H1........with a MBA from a US University!!
more...
gc4arun
08-03 09:41 PM
Yes. I'm July 2nd Filer at TSC and Still waiting. Any Examples that TSC is processing Apps. from July 3rd ... There might be 1000's still waiting who filed on July 2nd.
I am waiting as well:) EAD abt to expire, not used though.Keeping my fingers crossed, and opened 2nd service request after 45 days of the first SR( did not receive any email for first one) and no response and took infopass appt for 5th august Do not know if NC etc has been cleared or not
I am waiting as well:) EAD abt to expire, not used though.Keeping my fingers crossed, and opened 2nd service request after 45 days of the first SR( did not receive any email for first one) and no response and took infopass appt for 5th august Do not know if NC etc has been cleared or not
bathuzp
11-10 10:39 AM
Hi All,
I had worked for a company from Feb 2006 to Feb 2007 on an H-1B visa. I had applied for an H-1B extension via that company as their software engineer. I was granted that extension. After Feb 2007, i started working at a different company.
I applied for an H1B transfer as a software engineer with my current employer on Nov 27th 2006 through a law firm in Michigan. And last year my current company applied for my GC process in October 2009 under EB2 CATEGORY but with the same designation software engineer [level 2 as suggested by our lawyer] .I obtained a Master’s of Science in Management Information Systems from (University of Illinois at Springfield) in 2008 .I received my I-140 delivery notice in July 2010 stating that they have received his I-140 and it is now in process. I also received an approval on I-131 and I-765 just 2 weeks ago, I got a notice asking me and my wife to go for the biometrics test. Moreover, yesterday i.e. Nov 9th ,I received the EAD card for both me and my wife but unfortunately the very same day I get this Notice of Intent to Deny for I-140 requesting for evidence .
The notice states:
"……..The record contains a form ETA 9089 received by the department of labor on October 2009, thereby establishing a priority date in this matter. The petitioner certified in part H of that form that the proffered position is that of a "Software Engineer" and that the minimum level of education required to enter into that position is a Master's in Computer Science, Management Information Systems, Information Technology.
However the beneficiary also filed a form I-129, Petition for a non-immigrant worker in November 2006 (when i was working for the previous company) as a "Software Engineer". It is noted that the beneficiary did not have a master's degree at that time.
If the beneficiary entered into that H1B employment as a software engineer without a master's degree, the labor certificate will be invalidated since the master's level of education was not a minimum requirement. Please submit the evidence that the beneficiary obtained a master's degree prior to starting work for the petitioner as a software engineer.
The petition may be denied based on the above information. However u r hereby granted 30 days from the date of this letter to submit to this office a written rebuttal to the adverse information."
Also please note that we recently applied for my H1B extension as a programmer analyst as our lawyer had applied with this designation last year.
Now here my questions:
1. I applied for my H1B transfer with my current employer as Software engineer in 2006; I got my masters degree in Dec 2008. After consulting with my lawyer I filed for my GC in EB2 category as Software Engineer level 2 in Oct 2009. Now based on this why do you think we got this RFE? Is this a matter of concern or can it be a mistake? How can we resolve this?
2. The USCIS has asked me to provide evidence of my masters degree in 2006, but that is not true, I received it in 2008, what I have to prove is that my new job requires me to have my masters degree. But how do I do that since my work title is still just a software engineer but level 2 and in my organization level 2 software engineer requires masters degree?!!!
3. What is the worst case scenario? Is there a possibility that my I-140 will be rejected? What should my next step be then?
4. What will happen to all my approved forms (I-131 and I-765). Will they automatically get rejected too if my I-140 is denied?
5. Has anybody else had a similar case like mine? If yes, Please post your case out-comings on this thread.
6. What will happen to my EAD card? Can I change my status to EAD now or should I just wait?
7. Also we applied for H-1B extension as a different designation [Programmer Analyst]. So will that affect my GC process?
We have 30 DAYS to respond to this RFE. If u have any suggestions or advice Relating to my case please post them here ASAP. Please help us out on this.
I had worked for a company from Feb 2006 to Feb 2007 on an H-1B visa. I had applied for an H-1B extension via that company as their software engineer. I was granted that extension. After Feb 2007, i started working at a different company.
I applied for an H1B transfer as a software engineer with my current employer on Nov 27th 2006 through a law firm in Michigan. And last year my current company applied for my GC process in October 2009 under EB2 CATEGORY but with the same designation software engineer [level 2 as suggested by our lawyer] .I obtained a Master’s of Science in Management Information Systems from (University of Illinois at Springfield) in 2008 .I received my I-140 delivery notice in July 2010 stating that they have received his I-140 and it is now in process. I also received an approval on I-131 and I-765 just 2 weeks ago, I got a notice asking me and my wife to go for the biometrics test. Moreover, yesterday i.e. Nov 9th ,I received the EAD card for both me and my wife but unfortunately the very same day I get this Notice of Intent to Deny for I-140 requesting for evidence .
The notice states:
"……..The record contains a form ETA 9089 received by the department of labor on October 2009, thereby establishing a priority date in this matter. The petitioner certified in part H of that form that the proffered position is that of a "Software Engineer" and that the minimum level of education required to enter into that position is a Master's in Computer Science, Management Information Systems, Information Technology.
However the beneficiary also filed a form I-129, Petition for a non-immigrant worker in November 2006 (when i was working for the previous company) as a "Software Engineer". It is noted that the beneficiary did not have a master's degree at that time.
If the beneficiary entered into that H1B employment as a software engineer without a master's degree, the labor certificate will be invalidated since the master's level of education was not a minimum requirement. Please submit the evidence that the beneficiary obtained a master's degree prior to starting work for the petitioner as a software engineer.
The petition may be denied based on the above information. However u r hereby granted 30 days from the date of this letter to submit to this office a written rebuttal to the adverse information."
Also please note that we recently applied for my H1B extension as a programmer analyst as our lawyer had applied with this designation last year.
Now here my questions:
1. I applied for my H1B transfer with my current employer as Software engineer in 2006; I got my masters degree in Dec 2008. After consulting with my lawyer I filed for my GC in EB2 category as Software Engineer level 2 in Oct 2009. Now based on this why do you think we got this RFE? Is this a matter of concern or can it be a mistake? How can we resolve this?
2. The USCIS has asked me to provide evidence of my masters degree in 2006, but that is not true, I received it in 2008, what I have to prove is that my new job requires me to have my masters degree. But how do I do that since my work title is still just a software engineer but level 2 and in my organization level 2 software engineer requires masters degree?!!!
3. What is the worst case scenario? Is there a possibility that my I-140 will be rejected? What should my next step be then?
4. What will happen to all my approved forms (I-131 and I-765). Will they automatically get rejected too if my I-140 is denied?
5. Has anybody else had a similar case like mine? If yes, Please post your case out-comings on this thread.
6. What will happen to my EAD card? Can I change my status to EAD now or should I just wait?
7. Also we applied for H-1B extension as a different designation [Programmer Analyst]. So will that affect my GC process?
We have 30 DAYS to respond to this RFE. If u have any suggestions or advice Relating to my case please post them here ASAP. Please help us out on this.
more...
iad2ead
12-12 06:56 PM
Can admin create a poll to get some inputs from members?
thx
Iad
thx
Iad
2010 funny military quotes. funny
saveimmigration
12-06 02:22 PM
After seeing so much activism on Dream Act in the news, I think Dream Act deserves to be passed. Recapture does not. We are responsible for it for not doing anything if Dream Act passes. Just Google Dream Act and you will see so much work done on this. Compare it to Recapture bill. Reporters will also write about issues where they see lot of activity. We are simply not doing enough.
DREAM act is a political issue if passed will get Democrats millions and millions of hispanic votes and possibly help them in 2012 election. Republicans will also want those votes. So there is a possibility that DREAM will pass some day. It is unfortunate illegal aliens get path to citizenship and legal immigrants like us have to wait on an untimed line with a hope to get green card. It is all politics my friends. Bottom line is they are illegal when they came here. If they are students they should get F1 visas if they are working should get work permits. Giving them citizenship is ridiculous. No one supports our cause, not even the Hispanic community. Dude we should oppose illegal immigration that has kept legal immigration at hostage. Jai Hind!1
DREAM act is a political issue if passed will get Democrats millions and millions of hispanic votes and possibly help them in 2012 election. Republicans will also want those votes. So there is a possibility that DREAM will pass some day. It is unfortunate illegal aliens get path to citizenship and legal immigrants like us have to wait on an untimed line with a hope to get green card. It is all politics my friends. Bottom line is they are illegal when they came here. If they are students they should get F1 visas if they are working should get work permits. Giving them citizenship is ridiculous. No one supports our cause, not even the Hispanic community. Dude we should oppose illegal immigration that has kept legal immigration at hostage. Jai Hind!1
more...
WeShallOvercome
07-30 02:00 PM
Many of us are in this situation.
Can someone throw some light on previous experience s,
who gets the receipt notice when using G-28.
#1. Lawyer Alone
#2. Applicant Alone
#3. Both lawyer & the applicant.
--BB
In all the cases that I've seen so far, only lawyer has received it..
Can someone throw some light on previous experience s,
who gets the receipt notice when using G-28.
#1. Lawyer Alone
#2. Applicant Alone
#3. Both lawyer & the applicant.
--BB
In all the cases that I've seen so far, only lawyer has received it..
hair The King of Funny Forwards
dummgelauft
03-31 12:42 PM
For once, I like what Grassley is doing.
more...
optimystic
03-31 03:01 PM
I have a somewat similar situation, here goes:
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Hmm....I got married in Nov 2004 and my wife came in to US Dec 2004. and when filing 2004 taxes I didnt think about my wife being NR for tax purposes. I went thru a CPA and I believe she filed 1040 married filing jointly !!
Didnt have any questions or issues so far. Should I bother....file an amendment....or just ignore until in case IRS has an issue?
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Hmm....I got married in Nov 2004 and my wife came in to US Dec 2004. and when filing 2004 taxes I didnt think about my wife being NR for tax purposes. I went thru a CPA and I believe she filed 1040 married filing jointly !!
Didnt have any questions or issues so far. Should I bother....file an amendment....or just ignore until in case IRS has an issue?
hot soldiers funny. soldiers
cbpds
09-01 07:10 PM
Its not the question of opening borders, its more about how we sons and daughters treat our parents and cater to them after we go back home from work.
All they want is a friendly and meaningful conversation and respect once a day.
It is time USA opens its borders to allow more people from good cultures like India to come and settle here. Americans can learn family values from Indians. If America restricts immigrants it will turn into a country of bigoted, nepotistic creeps who will export their ugly culture of disowning their own parents to our shores and around the world. Programmers have long enjoyed high inflated salaries that are unreasonable. These salaries now need to come down and be competitive globally. Time for a 'change' in immigration and congress to open its arms to immigrants who made this country so great. It is time to make Kennedy's dream a reality. Indians who settle here need to have loyalty to their culture and should not become Americanized. Take the good things from this culture and not lose your own good cultural values that made India the best country in the world until the gora British came and ruined it.
All they want is a friendly and meaningful conversation and respect once a day.
It is time USA opens its borders to allow more people from good cultures like India to come and settle here. Americans can learn family values from Indians. If America restricts immigrants it will turn into a country of bigoted, nepotistic creeps who will export their ugly culture of disowning their own parents to our shores and around the world. Programmers have long enjoyed high inflated salaries that are unreasonable. These salaries now need to come down and be competitive globally. Time for a 'change' in immigration and congress to open its arms to immigrants who made this country so great. It is time to make Kennedy's dream a reality. Indians who settle here need to have loyalty to their culture and should not become Americanized. Take the good things from this culture and not lose your own good cultural values that made India the best country in the world until the gora British came and ruined it.
more...
house Political Jokes amp; Funny Quotes
pal351
01-05 11:31 AM
Hi Chris,
I expedite my petion by calling to customercare. I recieved a letter from USCIS, saying that, your file assigned to adjudicating office. Can you please share your experience and if you get any update please do share with me.
Thanks in advance
What do you mean by " expedite my petion by calling to customercare." on what basis they did for you? can please elobarate it bit more.
Thanks,
-Pal.
I expedite my petion by calling to customercare. I recieved a letter from USCIS, saying that, your file assigned to adjudicating office. Can you please share your experience and if you get any update please do share with me.
Thanks in advance
What do you mean by " expedite my petion by calling to customercare." on what basis they did for you? can please elobarate it bit more.
Thanks,
-Pal.
tattoo http://www.military-quotes.com
xu1
07-28 05:44 AM
Hi everyone,
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
Murthy's most recent newsletter (available on their homepage) mentioned how I140 premium processing would enable one in your situation to extend their h1b beyond six years.
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
Murthy's most recent newsletter (available on their homepage) mentioned how I140 premium processing would enable one in your situation to extend their h1b beyond six years.
more...
pictures cartoon, funny, military
go2roomshare
04-12 08:35 PM
Yes you can. I do not see any reason why you can't complain to DOL. first thing they did not pay you for 6 months. Second they persuaded or forced you to fake resume so that you get placed and they can make more money. It is definitely valid to complain.
dresses Gallery Index: Funny Military
glus
05-31 09:00 AM
Guys,
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
more...
makeup Military Peace
gchandu
04-12 10:12 AM
Hi
I e-filed my EAD and AP at Texas Service centre...did not get any FP notices and both EAD and AP got approved...
Don't know the logic / rule on when will they issue FP notices and for which category / state of people....
Thanks
Chandu
Hi I am planning for self filing EAD. I want to do e-file, but I heard that that if you are e-filing you need to go for finger printing. At the same time I also heard that no matter whether you go for e-filing or sending application to USCIS, if your finger printing is expired than you may need to go for the finger printing. Please suggest the best way to file for the EAD(I-765 form).
Als one more thing "Which USCIS Office?" section which date I need to put there.
I e-filed my EAD and AP at Texas Service centre...did not get any FP notices and both EAD and AP got approved...
Don't know the logic / rule on when will they issue FP notices and for which category / state of people....
Thanks
Chandu
Hi I am planning for self filing EAD. I want to do e-file, but I heard that that if you are e-filing you need to go for finger printing. At the same time I also heard that no matter whether you go for e-filing or sending application to USCIS, if your finger printing is expired than you may need to go for the finger printing. Please suggest the best way to file for the EAD(I-765 form).
Als one more thing "Which USCIS Office?" section which date I need to put there.
girlfriend Funny Military Motivational
sriswam
06-29 12:57 PM
Is there any quota on filing the I 140s? My friend requested his employer for upgrading his 140 and he says that the attorney mentioned that the quota for I 140 is already full. I don't think it is right. Any inromation please.
There is no quota. The employer can file for I-907 diectly without invoving the lawyer. The attorneys are not likely to help you now since they are swamped. I'd say ask the employer to file today. Else wait a month!
There is no quota. The employer can file for I-907 diectly without invoving the lawyer. The attorneys are not likely to help you now since they are swamped. I'd say ask the employer to file today. Else wait a month!
hairstyles Funny Motivationals
GCapplicant
07-21 02:07 PM
Misha,
Even I did not receive my AP ,which I applied last year july 2007.
Coudn't wait anymore...its kids vacation time.I took infopass ,the IO asked me why I had not contact ed all this time.I explained to her that the constant response whenever I called the 1-800 # was 30days -60 days.
she made us wait for almost 2 1/2 hours.
Finally she asked to submit new application ,2 photoes,2 copies of our BCertificates.
She gave our AP for me and my wife right away.
So I advice you to take Info pass and check.Ap what I received was in paper.
Even I did not receive my AP ,which I applied last year july 2007.
Coudn't wait anymore...its kids vacation time.I took infopass ,the IO asked me why I had not contact ed all this time.I explained to her that the constant response whenever I called the 1-800 # was 30days -60 days.
she made us wait for almost 2 1/2 hours.
Finally she asked to submit new application ,2 photoes,2 copies of our BCertificates.
She gave our AP for me and my wife right away.
So I advice you to take Info pass and check.Ap what I received was in paper.
JunRN
08-21 11:38 AM
Once they're through with July 2 or 3 filers, July 17th filers onwards will be next because there are just a handful who filed on July 4 to July 16. This news makes sense to me.
It seems Texas is moving fast now and so is Nebraska. We can see a big leap in the Receipting Up-date this coming Friday. Whew...mine is 2 receipting up-date away and got no privilege to see if checks got encashed because atty. paid the fees.
It seems Texas is moving fast now and so is Nebraska. We can see a big leap in the Receipting Up-date this coming Friday. Whew...mine is 2 receipting up-date away and got no privilege to see if checks got encashed because atty. paid the fees.
desi3933
03-03 12:30 PM
Desi, Thanks for the translation, it was very helpful. However, I failed to find in this document anywhere that a PD obtained from EB application can not be ported to an FB category.
Its not even for ENTIRE employment based category either.
As mentioned in the document, porting applies ONLY for immigrant petitions (I-140) approved under EB-1, EB-2 or EB-3 classification.
PD can NOT be ported for EB-4 and EB-5 either.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Its not even for ENTIRE employment based category either.
As mentioned in the document, porting applies ONLY for immigrant petitions (I-140) approved under EB-1, EB-2 or EB-3 classification.
PD can NOT be ported for EB-4 and EB-5 either.
__________________
Not a legal advice.