mpadapa
08-09 02:30 PM
bump
wallpaper I wanna hold your hand!
mysticblue
08-17 12:31 AM
I'm on a H1B status and was initially working for Company A, with an approved Visa. I joined Company B and initiated a H1 transfer to them. I am on their pay role, however am on bench since i joined them. Its been 5 months and my visa transfer with Company B is still in Pending. Now, I have an offer from Company C, and am thinking about joining them.
Meanwhile, since Company B has not been able to find work, they have indicated a termination of my employment if i'm not placed in the project by end of this month. I think i have no other optiion but to join Company C before my visa with Company B is cancelled. I have been advised to go for a premium processing of H1 to Company C, so that by the time i'm out of Company B, i have a good chance of having approved visa from Company C.
1. Is it legal to transfer my Visa to Company C while my Visa with Company B is still in progress. Note that I have worked with Company B for about 5 months.
2. Can I use approval notice from Company A and pay stubs from Company B to initiate premium transfer with Company C ?
3. If i initiate a transfer with Company C, and later Company B terminates my employment, what will happen to my pending visa with Company C?
4. Will H1 transfer with Company C get affected if USCIS gets to know that my pending transfer with Company B has been cancelled?
5. Will it make any difference if I resign from Company B (after initiating transfer with Company C), before Company B terminates my employment.? Are termination and resignation cases treated in the same way by USCIS ?
Please help, as i'm in a bit of a crisis about what decision to take. Any kind on response for the above would be appreciated.
Meanwhile, since Company B has not been able to find work, they have indicated a termination of my employment if i'm not placed in the project by end of this month. I think i have no other optiion but to join Company C before my visa with Company B is cancelled. I have been advised to go for a premium processing of H1 to Company C, so that by the time i'm out of Company B, i have a good chance of having approved visa from Company C.
1. Is it legal to transfer my Visa to Company C while my Visa with Company B is still in progress. Note that I have worked with Company B for about 5 months.
2. Can I use approval notice from Company A and pay stubs from Company B to initiate premium transfer with Company C ?
3. If i initiate a transfer with Company C, and later Company B terminates my employment, what will happen to my pending visa with Company C?
4. Will H1 transfer with Company C get affected if USCIS gets to know that my pending transfer with Company B has been cancelled?
5. Will it make any difference if I resign from Company B (after initiating transfer with Company C), before Company B terminates my employment.? Are termination and resignation cases treated in the same way by USCIS ?
Please help, as i'm in a bit of a crisis about what decision to take. Any kind on response for the above would be appreciated.
Jaime
02-02 05:35 PM
No way this amnesty would pass. This will end up in the ash heap of unpassed bills.
Yes but there is a section that says that you have to prove that you are admissible as an immigrant (I would like to think that means that you are not an illegal alien!) read here:
`(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph
But who knows!
Anyway, it's positive that at least there is some "buzz" in the air
I hope that Janet Napolitano and team will want to show quick fixes in order to differentiate themselves from the terrible Bush administration. Fixing legal immigration is relatively low-hanging fruit and way less controversial than Illegal imm. Thoughts? I am full of hope
Yes but there is a section that says that you have to prove that you are admissible as an immigrant (I would like to think that means that you are not an illegal alien!) read here:
`(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph
But who knows!
Anyway, it's positive that at least there is some "buzz" in the air
I hope that Janet Napolitano and team will want to show quick fixes in order to differentiate themselves from the terrible Bush administration. Fixing legal immigration is relatively low-hanging fruit and way less controversial than Illegal imm. Thoughts? I am full of hope
2011 2 people walking on beach.
aau
08-08 10:37 AM
I have filed for my EAD and 485 in july 2007. I have not got my EAD due to Name check (dont know why they cannot issue EAD bcos of name check).
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
Should you call your Senator or Congressman - and does it matter? Thanks in advance ppl..
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
Should you call your Senator or Congressman - and does it matter? Thanks in advance ppl..
more...
bombaysardar
07-26 11:40 PM
keep it up! :) :)
indianabacklog
07-27 09:32 AM
I don't think its required to work 100% while you an EAD, most of us apply EAD for spouses along with us, but how many are going to start work?
EAD is like a free pass to "living". You have the choice to work, not to work, work for yourself, change employer when you wish etc.
However, if you are the primary applicant if at all possible stay with your H1B employer and let your dependent have this luxury.
EAD is like a free pass to "living". You have the choice to work, not to work, work for yourself, change employer when you wish etc.
However, if you are the primary applicant if at all possible stay with your H1B employer and let your dependent have this luxury.
more...
Quadrucle
09-15 05:29 PM
Last time CIR had sweet deal for Illegals ..
Pay $100 and get Z visa ( Work Permit ) .. --> GC --> Citizenship ---> Vote for ?? ..
For Legals ...go back and restart in new queue .. We dont want to skilled people be free of our companies. We expect you to be enslaved ..We are leader of Free world.
How can a New queue or a point system can be affecting us (EB) ? If it is like other contries where they have the point system for immigration, a job in hand/education/number of years lived in the country/ etc etc, everything should be in favour of the EB's, right? Also, if you know definetly when you will get a GC, rather than indefinite wait will help so many people in making the decision. I think here, the most frustrating thing is not knowing when you will get it, rather than waiting years and years..
Pay $100 and get Z visa ( Work Permit ) .. --> GC --> Citizenship ---> Vote for ?? ..
For Legals ...go back and restart in new queue .. We dont want to skilled people be free of our companies. We expect you to be enslaved ..We are leader of Free world.
How can a New queue or a point system can be affecting us (EB) ? If it is like other contries where they have the point system for immigration, a job in hand/education/number of years lived in the country/ etc etc, everything should be in favour of the EB's, right? Also, if you know definetly when you will get a GC, rather than indefinite wait will help so many people in making the decision. I think here, the most frustrating thing is not knowing when you will get it, rather than waiting years and years..
2010 people holding hands walking
GCHope2011
03-23 09:45 AM
smuggymba,
Old I-94 expiration date was January 3, 2010, and new I-94 started from October 18, 2010.
You risk of being barred from entry is very real as you have accumulated more than 180 days of illegal presence in the US.
Your lawyer is right - and although there are some chances that some people are not barred, such info is mostly anecdotal and should not be used as a basis for making definitive plans.
Old I-94 expiration date was January 3, 2010, and new I-94 started from October 18, 2010.
You risk of being barred from entry is very real as you have accumulated more than 180 days of illegal presence in the US.
Your lawyer is right - and although there are some chances that some people are not barred, such info is mostly anecdotal and should not be used as a basis for making definitive plans.
more...
mhathi
09-23 07:55 AM
I suggest you talk to a good lawyer! This kind of question is too sensitive to rely on people's opinion.
hair house The older woman is walking two people walking holding hands.
nandakumar
05-26 12:58 AM
QGA and its staff should be really appreciated as they had understood our situation and came forward to help us with out we having solid financial background and limited numerical strength.
We all should thank the staffs of various Senators office, who had conveyed our phone calls and fax to the respective senators with out putting any politics into it because none of us are voters.
More over special thanks to the staffs of the Senators who had worked closely with IV and agreed to bring and vote on the immigration bill that incorporates the goals of IV.
We all should thank the staffs of various Senators office, who had conveyed our phone calls and fax to the respective senators with out putting any politics into it because none of us are voters.
More over special thanks to the staffs of the Senators who had worked closely with IV and agreed to bring and vote on the immigration bill that incorporates the goals of IV.
more...
dassumi
12-23 02:58 PM
This interests me. I am in the cross roads of my career where I have been offered a job that requires a lot of international travel. I was told that since we are adjusting status, it is not a status and countries like Thailand (any country) will not give you a visa as you dont have a status in the US. Would like to know more on this topic - I am sure there are others in this boat.
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
hot two people walking holding
webm
09-25 11:10 AM
So spouse can just use the EAD card and apply for a job. What does the employing company ask for when hiring?
What if they do not know what an EAD card is?
Also when can the spouse apply for SSN# after getting EAD card. Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?
1)Just say them that you have EAD work permit authorization and can work for any employer/company on W2 basis.
2)You just explain them with its use.Mostly everyone know about EAD is used for..
3)Once you got EAD card onhand you can directly go to any nearest SSN office and apply.You should get SSN card with in 15 business days or earlier..
HTH,
What if they do not know what an EAD card is?
Also when can the spouse apply for SSN# after getting EAD card. Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?
1)Just say them that you have EAD work permit authorization and can work for any employer/company on W2 basis.
2)You just explain them with its use.Mostly everyone know about EAD is used for..
3)Once you got EAD card onhand you can directly go to any nearest SSN office and apply.You should get SSN card with in 15 business days or earlier..
HTH,
more...
house Two people walking on beach
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
tattoo A couple walking down a dirt
SAMK
02-01 01:47 PM
Specifically how long were you in US before you started your CPT and in what capacity and where were you working ?
more...
pictures Two people walking by water#39;s
Templarian
04-23 04:42 PM
^I didn't even know if it was relevant when i remembered the "SDL", i just remember my bro talking about it once. But that was a very long time ago.
Maybe as your learning you could write up some very simple step by step tutorials for beginning the use of SDL.
Maybe as your learning you could write up some very simple step by step tutorials for beginning the use of SDL.
dresses walking holding hands,
santb1975
12-25 04:18 PM
for sure if you go DOL. you can take the help of an attorney to get you the amount based on your past pay stubs.
more...
makeup hair 2 people holding hands at
xela
06-17 08:53 AM
We all saw SLUDs shortly after the day we received notice, as I metioned I got receipt on April 27tha dn last SLUD was April 30th,....sinc ethen nothing
however most people got their EADs already so they might just enjoy sitting on mine who knows sigh...
good luck and dont expect any LUDs until they actually send you something :-)
however most people got their EADs already so they might just enjoy sitting on mine who knows sigh...
good luck and dont expect any LUDs until they actually send you something :-)
girlfriend Death brings people together.
fide_champ
09-16 04:33 PM
here is an article from murthy about unemployment benefits:
MurthyDotCom : Unemployment Benefits and Impact on U.S. Immigration (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_unembe.html)
MurthyDotCom : Unemployment Benefits and Impact on U.S. Immigration (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_unembe.html)
hairstyles 2 people holding hands at
dixie
08-21 08:49 PM
1. To be fair to all, Ask all h1b's to gain 2 - 3 years of US experience, before filing for GC. (2 years of Paystub at the minumum and or tax returns).
What sort of "fairness" do you hope to achieve by delaying new GC applicants ? Given the current pace of visa number availability, it is going to be 2015 or so before a 2006 PD for EB-3 becomes current and USCIS gets to it. Does that not already take care of "fairness" with respect to older applicants ?
For a new GC applicant who is looking at another 8-9 years wait to file 485 (I am one of them and there are plenty on this forum) it is more important than ever to lock a PD asap. Even assuming it is in larger interest of all of us, how will you educate an average lawmaker of all these intricacies ? We are having a tough time as it is distinguishing ourselves from the illegals.
What sort of "fairness" do you hope to achieve by delaying new GC applicants ? Given the current pace of visa number availability, it is going to be 2015 or so before a 2006 PD for EB-3 becomes current and USCIS gets to it. Does that not already take care of "fairness" with respect to older applicants ?
For a new GC applicant who is looking at another 8-9 years wait to file 485 (I am one of them and there are plenty on this forum) it is more important than ever to lock a PD asap. Even assuming it is in larger interest of all of us, how will you educate an average lawmaker of all these intricacies ? We are having a tough time as it is distinguishing ourselves from the illegals.
kak1978
06-05 10:50 PM
I saw the same status message yesterday. But it was delivered today morning at 5:40 am!, Weird!!
I dont know if other Folks have seen the same thing. My renewal EAD application has reached Texas (TSC) today June 5th around noon by USPS Express Mail but the status says
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. A second delivery attempt will be made. If unsuccessful, we will hold it for five business days and then it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later.
The address where i sent is
USCIS
Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
Any clue what may be going on - this is another round of fun :confused:
I dont know if other Folks have seen the same thing. My renewal EAD application has reached Texas (TSC) today June 5th around noon by USPS Express Mail but the status says
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. A second delivery attempt will be made. If unsuccessful, we will hold it for five business days and then it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later.
The address where i sent is
USCIS
Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
Any clue what may be going on - this is another round of fun :confused:
houston2005
03-05 09:30 PM
We cannot justify the opposition to price increase as INS expects the fees to be paid by employer. So if needed employers can oppose not the employees. Only fees the candidates expect to pay is citizenship fees and all other immigration related fees should be paid by Employers as they are sponsoring gc
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
No comments:
Post a Comment