willy007
10-23 11:02 AM
Hi,
I am asking this for my sister who is working under J1 (start in October 2007 and valid for 1 year). She already get a J1 visa stamp and re-enter US as J1 status
1. Change of employer is not permissible in J1. Can she submit a new J1 petition and thus ending her current J1 petition early?
2. How about the 2-year home residency requirement (HRR)? Does she need a waiver for the current J1 she is doing now OR can she satisfy the HRR after she finishes with the new J1? The new J1 will not end later than the current J1. So, practically she will be in J1 for 1 year only.
3. Does she need to get another J1 visa stamp and re-enter the US?
Thank you.
I am asking this for my sister who is working under J1 (start in October 2007 and valid for 1 year). She already get a J1 visa stamp and re-enter US as J1 status
1. Change of employer is not permissible in J1. Can she submit a new J1 petition and thus ending her current J1 petition early?
2. How about the 2-year home residency requirement (HRR)? Does she need a waiver for the current J1 she is doing now OR can she satisfy the HRR after she finishes with the new J1? The new J1 will not end later than the current J1. So, practically she will be in J1 for 1 year only.
3. Does she need to get another J1 visa stamp and re-enter the US?
Thank you.
wallpaper wedding hairstyles for long
ravi2patel
11-29 01:20 PM
Hi,
Just wanted to get some feedback whether its possible to get i-140 approved using an old approved labor ?
- Case:EB3 ROW.
- The company A merged with B. (may be a successor-in-interst)
- Labor from B approved in 2005 w/pd=2005
- Labor from A approved in 2006 w/pd=2002.
- I-140 using 2005 LB approved with B
- Lawyer suggests to use the A's 2002 Labor to file a new i-140 under company B. He says that as per some law the old labor is still valid until end of this year. Please advice.
Regards,
RP
Just wanted to get some feedback whether its possible to get i-140 approved using an old approved labor ?
- Case:EB3 ROW.
- The company A merged with B. (may be a successor-in-interst)
- Labor from B approved in 2005 w/pd=2005
- Labor from A approved in 2006 w/pd=2002.
- I-140 using 2005 LB approved with B
- Lawyer suggests to use the A's 2002 Labor to file a new i-140 under company B. He says that as per some law the old labor is still valid until end of this year. Please advice.
Regards,
RP
ragool25
07-12 03:28 PM
Hi,
I am student on OPT extn working for an Non Profit Organisation ( non everified) , Since 2 months, I Know i should not work for non everfied company on OPT Extension, So i asked my company to do H1 asap, since workiing for non everified aslso considered as unemployed, But i am aware that in entire OPT we can unemployed for total 120 days.
My company is an Non Profit Organisation & dont have relatioship with any educational institues or research org.
Is my company eligible for H1 cap exempt, so that i can keep my start date as approval of H1? so i wont fall out of status since my H1 starts as the days of approval............or I need to wait until oct 1, 2010,
Even if i start at oct 1,2010, Will it affect my green card processing, since I worked for non everified around 6 months...........
Please provide your inputs.......
Thanks for reading my thread.
I am student on OPT extn working for an Non Profit Organisation ( non everified) , Since 2 months, I Know i should not work for non everfied company on OPT Extension, So i asked my company to do H1 asap, since workiing for non everified aslso considered as unemployed, But i am aware that in entire OPT we can unemployed for total 120 days.
My company is an Non Profit Organisation & dont have relatioship with any educational institues or research org.
Is my company eligible for H1 cap exempt, so that i can keep my start date as approval of H1? so i wont fall out of status since my H1 starts as the days of approval............or I need to wait until oct 1, 2010,
Even if i start at oct 1,2010, Will it affect my green card processing, since I worked for non everified around 6 months...........
Please provide your inputs.......
Thanks for reading my thread.
2011 short hair cuts and hairstyles
pendingGC
07-16 11:21 PM
Hello Attorney
I am on H4 visa now and when I was on F2 visa I have used medicaid and wic for prenatal care. It was used during my pregnancy only. I am never asked for that in my h4 visa inteviews. Since my husband is applying for CP for green card . Will it be a problem for me to go for CP ? Will consular office consider it a public charge and deny my GC ? Just in case if I get denial how to overcome that denial ? is there a standard process ? Will it affect my husband's GC ?
I am on H4 visa now and when I was on F2 visa I have used medicaid and wic for prenatal care. It was used during my pregnancy only. I am never asked for that in my h4 visa inteviews. Since my husband is applying for CP for green card . Will it be a problem for me to go for CP ? Will consular office consider it a public charge and deny my GC ? Just in case if I get denial how to overcome that denial ? is there a standard process ? Will it affect my husband's GC ?
more...
sab
07-27 09:46 AM
bump up
zofa30
09-15 04:46 PM
Hi,
I am on EB2+PERM. I got LC approved and currently filed for I-140 and 485.
As I understand unless the I-485 is pending for more than 180 days after the approval of I-140, I have to restart the whole process again with the new employer (expect that I can port PD if I want to).
Now are there any chance that if the above scenario happens, and my employer did not revoke I-140 or 485, that I can still receive my GC? Or that will be illegal? Please clarify.
Thanks
I am on EB2+PERM. I got LC approved and currently filed for I-140 and 485.
As I understand unless the I-485 is pending for more than 180 days after the approval of I-140, I have to restart the whole process again with the new employer (expect that I can port PD if I want to).
Now are there any chance that if the above scenario happens, and my employer did not revoke I-140 or 485, that I can still receive my GC? Or that will be illegal? Please clarify.
Thanks
more...
MONCYS
04-09 01:28 PM
I filed for EAD (new application) 30 days back along with my AOS applications. Finished my FP on the 25th day.
Normally How long it take to get EAD from Texas Service center. ??
Any idea. ??
Normally How long it take to get EAD from Texas Service center. ??
Any idea. ??
2010 http://hair-styles-for-long-
k94
09-21 06:55 PM
I have also always handed in both
more...
dollar500
11-06 09:40 PM
I was curious if somebody has experience of H1b stamping in dominican republic?
I am planning to go there on a business trip, is it advisable to just go and get it stamped there or should I rather go to canada/mexico and get H1 stamped.
I looked at their website but it's not really very helpful.
I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions
I am planning to go there on a business trip, is it advisable to just go and get it stamped there or should I rather go to canada/mexico and get H1 stamped.
I looked at their website but it's not really very helpful.
I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions
hair hairstyles long hair down.
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
more...
Macaca
03-08 09:08 AM
C-SPAN Lets Bloggers Use Its Clips (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702465_2.html)
C-SPAN, the exclusive video chronicler of Congress, yesterday took a major step to loosen its copyright hold by announcing that it would no longer object to YouTube or bloggers posting its footage from the Hill or from federal agencies online. The content makes up about half the cable channel's programming.
Use of the video footage became awkward recently when Republicans accused Pelosi of "pirating" some clips for her new blog, the Gavel. C-SPAN explained that floor footage is shot by government cameras and that Pelosi was on firm ground using it. But C-SPAN did ask her to take down a clip of a committee hearing shot by a C-SPAN camera.
A C-SPAN spokeswoman said yesterday's action was a nod to the ever-changing technological landscape.
C-SPAN, the exclusive video chronicler of Congress, yesterday took a major step to loosen its copyright hold by announcing that it would no longer object to YouTube or bloggers posting its footage from the Hill or from federal agencies online. The content makes up about half the cable channel's programming.
Use of the video footage became awkward recently when Republicans accused Pelosi of "pirating" some clips for her new blog, the Gavel. C-SPAN explained that floor footage is shot by government cameras and that Pelosi was on firm ground using it. But C-SPAN did ask her to take down a clip of a committee hearing shot by a C-SPAN camera.
A C-SPAN spokeswoman said yesterday's action was a nod to the ever-changing technological landscape.
hot house Short Hair Styles
Immqry
08-09 12:55 PM
Hi ,
I Am planning to apply for my 10th Year H-1B Extension with the same employer.
My last H-1B was in 2007. I looked on doleta.gov The Prevailing Wage
in 2007 for the same job and same location as I am right now at
Level 3 was 57000.00, Now in 2010 it is 76000.
I talked to my Employer about this, he says he cannot raise my salary that much.
My Question is
1. When I applied for Foreign Labor Cert On-line does the
Prevailing Wage has to be most recent even in case of H-1B Extension ?
2. Is is ok If I go to Level-2 Instead of Level-3, will it considered as
change in Employment ?
3. The Prevailing Wage for 2008 for the same job and same location
as I am right now at is 66000. Should I Try to Apply for labor
cert referencing 2008 Prevailing Wage. ?
4. What are my options ?
Thanks
Immqry
I Am planning to apply for my 10th Year H-1B Extension with the same employer.
My last H-1B was in 2007. I looked on doleta.gov The Prevailing Wage
in 2007 for the same job and same location as I am right now at
Level 3 was 57000.00, Now in 2010 it is 76000.
I talked to my Employer about this, he says he cannot raise my salary that much.
My Question is
1. When I applied for Foreign Labor Cert On-line does the
Prevailing Wage has to be most recent even in case of H-1B Extension ?
2. Is is ok If I go to Level-2 Instead of Level-3, will it considered as
change in Employment ?
3. The Prevailing Wage for 2008 for the same job and same location
as I am right now at is 66000. Should I Try to Apply for labor
cert referencing 2008 Prevailing Wage. ?
4. What are my options ?
Thanks
Immqry
more...
house Wedding Hair Styles
glosrfc
03-17 05:21 PM
I was expecting some more inspirational stuff too.
Like this:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4339/cat1k.jpg
Or this, if you prefer your text to move:
http://www.imagonewmedia.com/player.php?id=55
Like this:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4339/cat1k.jpg
Or this, if you prefer your text to move:
http://www.imagonewmedia.com/player.php?id=55
tattoo hairstyles for long curly hair
Kaianna
08-09 01:37 PM
Due to the big mess of July visa bulliten. Can I file multiple 485 cases to secure that one of my AOS case is accepted? Since once it is rejected due to improper filing, the next visa bulliten would be back to 2006 or 2005.
My situation is:
First I-485 case: I can file I-485 as principle applicant, and my spouse can file as dependent
plan to submit at the end of this week (Aug 11, 07).
Sencond I-485 case: My spouse can file as principle applicant based on his I-140, and I can file as dependent, plan to submit before Aug 17, 2007, with cover letter stating:
If the first AOS case based on xxx's I-140 is accepted, please withdraw the second AOS case based on YYY's I-140.
Is it doable? any potential issue? Thank you very much for your comments and advise. Urgent!!!
My situation is:
First I-485 case: I can file I-485 as principle applicant, and my spouse can file as dependent
plan to submit at the end of this week (Aug 11, 07).
Sencond I-485 case: My spouse can file as principle applicant based on his I-140, and I can file as dependent, plan to submit before Aug 17, 2007, with cover letter stating:
If the first AOS case based on xxx's I-140 is accepted, please withdraw the second AOS case based on YYY's I-140.
Is it doable? any potential issue? Thank you very much for your comments and advise. Urgent!!!
more...
pictures Read more about 2009 hair cuts
maddila
04-12 06:54 PM
My 485 is under processesing with a priority date of March 2006.
I was browsing through the instructions to e-file my I-131 (Travel document) and found this interesting point and was a little confused.
This is from USCIS website
You are not eligible to electronically file this form if:
You have a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence Status or Adjust Status currently at a USCIS office and you are eligible to file the I-131 for no additional fee.
Does this mean we can no longer file for I-131 online...? I did this last year and didnot have any issue's. Any thoughts/opinions/experiences are highly appreciated. Thanks
I was browsing through the instructions to e-file my I-131 (Travel document) and found this interesting point and was a little confused.
This is from USCIS website
You are not eligible to electronically file this form if:
You have a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence Status or Adjust Status currently at a USCIS office and you are eligible to file the I-131 for no additional fee.
Does this mean we can no longer file for I-131 online...? I did this last year and didnot have any issue's. Any thoughts/opinions/experiences are highly appreciated. Thanks
dresses Long Curly Wedding Hair Styles
gausoni@hotmail.com
09-23 04:56 PM
my pd march 2002 pending 485 any estimated time to get 485 approved?
more...
makeup prom hairstyles for long hair
Abhishika
10-17 07:28 PM
Hi All,
My hubbys PD is dec 04 Eb2. His I140 was filed on July 07 and in aug 07
we have applied for I-485.
I got the I-131 receipt notice which is having A# number.
Does A# number means 140 approval ? Online status of 140 shows as pending?
Thank You
Abhishika
My hubbys PD is dec 04 Eb2. His I140 was filed on July 07 and in aug 07
we have applied for I-485.
I got the I-131 receipt notice which is having A# number.
Does A# number means 140 approval ? Online status of 140 shows as pending?
Thank You
Abhishika
girlfriend hairstyles long hair. wavy
nmdial
03-31 12:13 PM
I initially voted in favour of this, but on further reflection, I think this is bad policy and urge others to not support this.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Thanks for your insight. This is another perspective and it demands further discussion and analysis. The wait time between filing I-485 and receiving the green card is already beyond the norm and a lot of companies are aware of this. Imagine the wait times for the people who haven't yet been able to file for their Adjustment of Status. Wouldn't it help them (and their dependents) if they are at least allowed to file for their AOS? I invite the members to provide their perspectives on the issues raised by JeffDG above. Please do not attack each other. Let us fight together in lieu of fighting each other..
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Thanks for your insight. This is another perspective and it demands further discussion and analysis. The wait time between filing I-485 and receiving the green card is already beyond the norm and a lot of companies are aware of this. Imagine the wait times for the people who haven't yet been able to file for their Adjustment of Status. Wouldn't it help them (and their dependents) if they are at least allowed to file for their AOS? I invite the members to provide their perspectives on the issues raised by JeffDG above. Please do not attack each other. Let us fight together in lieu of fighting each other..
hairstyles blonde hairstyles for long
Circus123
04-04 11:27 PM
My bad ... Too many beers too for today Good night!
gc_wannabe
07-11 08:31 PM
My cousin got a H1B petition approved (via the lottery system) last year. One consultant in the US had filed his H1B, and my cousin was asked to pay for the entire process, which he did. But, nothing happened last year after that, because the job market turned worse. My cousin did not appear for the visa interview.
Now, when he is trying to get in touch with the consultant, he is not getting any response. What are my cousin's options now?
Thanks.
Now, when he is trying to get in touch with the consultant, he is not getting any response. What are my cousin's options now?
Thanks.
Sandeep
02-17 02:11 PM
I understand that cross chargeability becomes valid at the time of allocation of the visa number. So what do you mean by "in advance"?